[1] In many Latin American Lutheran churches the challenges of
globalization have recently been linked to the act of confessing.
In declaring this to be a confessional matter, many Lutherans claim
to be following a tradition which goes back to the time of the
Reformation. The confessional aspect has also been emphasized by
many in the World Alliance of Reformed Churches (WARC), most
recently in the Buenos Aires Declaration (2003) and the Accra
Confession (2004).[1] Be it casus,
status or processus confessionis, the
main focus is to highlight the threat posited by economic injustice
and globalization for the integrity of faith, as well as the
well-being of humanity and creation.
[2] The notion of confession undoubtedly stimulates the ethical
dimension of Protestantism, which in turn focuses the churches' and
agencies' attention on the challenges posed by neoliberalism.
However, beyond the rhetorical aspects, the question is whether
these references to the language of confessio are related
to its historical use, and whether this points to an effective
strategy for facing the challenges posed by globalization. We will
see that the hermeneutical framework of the two-kingdoms doctrine
is needed to "place" the act of confession in its true social
dimension, that is, by clearly distinguishing and relating the
proper ecclesial and political praxis.
A brief history
[3] The Lutheran tradition understands the act of confession as
an intrinsic aspect of the Christian faith. From a biblical
perspective this faith, as an action of the Spirit, is an integral
reality expressed not only in praise and adoration, but also in
discipleship, vocation, mission and in the church's
diakonia. Adding to this rich conception, however,
Lutheranism introduced another meaning, namely, the case of
confessing (Bekenntnis) in times of persecution and
tyranny.[2] Although the entire life of
a Christian and the church is a time of confession (in its primary
sense), there are historical situations which require a public
defense of the gospel and the integrity of faith (im Fall der
Bekenntnis or quando confessio fidei requiritur).
[4] When the Formula of Concord was written, this idea
of confessio originated within the framework of a dispute
about matters referred to as adiaphora. The case in point
was the validity of reestablishing in the Lutheran churches some
ceremonies (related to the Mass) and orders of the ministry that
had already been abrogated and were not per se ordained by
God. The party associated with Flacius argued that in times of
scandal or persecution, issues that were formerly secondary to the
faith become matters of primary confession in order to defend the
integrity of the gospel.[3] This
position was opposed to Melanchthon's more congenial attitude, and
was eventually reflected in the text of the Formula: those
issues considered adiaphora, or secondary to the faith
(Mittelding, res media et indiferentes) become primary
issues when their imposition violates the evangelical conscience
centered on justification by faith.[4] In this
way a threat to evangelical freedom represents "a case for the
confession of faith" (im fall der Bekenntnis; in casu
confessionis), as indicated in this text:
[5]
We believe, teach and
confess that in time of persecution, when a clear-cut confession of
faith is demanded of us, we dare not yield to the enemies in such
indifferent things, as the apostle Paul writes, "For freedom Christ
has set us free; stand fast therefore, and do not submit again to a
yoke of slavery" (Gal 5:11) […]. In such a case it is not
longer a question of indifferent things, but a matter which has to
do with the truth of the gospel, Christian liberty, and the
sanctioning of public idolatry, as well as preventing offense to
the weak in faith. In all these things we have no concessions to
make, but we should witness an unequivocal confession and suffer in
consequence what God sends us and what he lets the enemies inflict
on us.[5]
[6] This provides the following guidelines for
confession in emergency situations:
[7] 1. Confessing as a public act of engaging the central
affirmations of faith is closely linked to a context of political
and religious persecution. It is necessary when the gospel truth
(centered in justification by faith) is threatened either by
ecclesiastical tyranny or through the arrogance of state power.
[8] 2. Confessing is necessary when there is a threat of falling
into idolatry, as well as losing the freedom given by the
gospel.
[9] 3. The confession should be clear and direct, for the sake
of those who are "weak in faith," that is, who could easily be
confused by matters that are not central to the faith
(adiaphora).
[10] A time for confessing is given to the believers and the
community in anticipation of eschatological tribulations, whose
signs are persecution and suffering. Confessing is closely linked
to unjust suffering and the cross. In short, it implies a
martyrial and communitarian act, a defense of the
oppressed and persecuted because of the faith, and is a way of
restricting the hold of other authorities over the
gospel.[6]
[11] In the later history of Lutheranism, the accent on
confession changed. After the Peace of Westphalia (1648), the term
confessio was utilized as a demarcation between churches
rather than signifying a situation of persecution. Confession
became synonymous with territoriality. During the nineteenth
century, after the union of the Lutheran majority with the Reformed
minority in Prussian territories, the category of
Bekenntnis reemerged.[7] The term
Bekenntnisstand (status confessionis) was used in
regions suffering serious denominational conflicts. It was the
basis for maintaining sacramental, liturgical, catechetical and
devotional practices which had been jeopardized by the alleged
"unification." But this notion of status confessionis had
more to do with doxological matters than with open
"persecution."
Bonhoeffer and subsequent developments
[12] The concept of confession was used again in the well-known
twentieth-century Kirchenkampf, that is, the German
Protestant struggle against Nazism. This has had enormous
repercussions on subsequent theological developments. While
participating in theological discussions leading to the stance
taken in the Barmen Declaration (1934), Dietrich
Bonhoeffer wrote an essay entitled "The Church and the Jewish
Question"(April 1933). Here he argued that the church faces a
critical situation when its very essence and proclamation are
affected by the state excluding baptized Jews from Christian
congregations, or prohibiting missionary work among Jews. According
to Bonhoeffer, in such a case the church is in status
confessionis, since the state's racist and discriminatory laws
pose a threat to an essential aspect of the life of the church as
koinonia.
[13] Up to this point Bonhoeffer follows the tradition of the
Formula of Concord. But, conscious of the new historical
situation, Bonhoeffer retrieves a surplus of meaning from the
sixteenth-century formulations. Facing the Nazi threat, Bonhoeffer
described the two possible scenarios in which the church can
declare itself in status confessionis. The first is when
the state exceeds its powers and becomes a tyrant (ein Zuviel
an Ordnung und Recht). The second is when the state is
deficient with regard to its responsibilities for social order and
the law (ein Zuwenig an Ordnung und Recht). "Both too much
law and order and too little law and order compel the church to
speak."[8]
[14] It is important to note that Bonhoeffer understands this
within the hermeneutical presuppositions of Luther's political
theology. Bonhoeffer clearly relates the church's time of
confession with the problem of misunderstanding God's two
regiments. When they are confused, or when they do not fulfill
their divine mandate, or when one domain pretends to exert
tyrannical power over the other, we are in status
confessionis. According to Bonhoeffer, this is the case
[15]
[…] when it [the
church] sees the state unrestrainedly bring about too much or too
little law and order. In both these cases it must see the existence
of the state, and with it its own existence, threatened. There
would be too little law if any group of subjects were deprived of
their rights, too much where the state intervened in the character
of the church and its proclamation, e.g., in the forced exclusion
of baptized Jews from our Christian congregations or in the
prohibition of our mission to the Jews. Here the Christian church
would find itself in status confessionis and here the state would
be in the act of negating itself. A state which includes within
itself a terrorized church has lost its most faithful
servant.[9]
[16] Bonhoeffer's line of interpretation focuses both on the
abuses within or against the church, which directly threaten the
clear and distinctive proclamation of the gospel and administration
of the sacraments, as well as on the abuse and irresponsibility of
the state. This interpretation reemphasizes the importance of the
distinction between the two realms, in order to accentuate the
different but convergent moral and social roles of both state and
church.[10] Thus, when the state
fails to maintain order and justice, the church has three options.
It can demand that the state "take responsibility," it could
"bandage the victims under the wheel," or it may have "to jam a
spoke in the wheel."[11] This
last action would, according to Bonhoeffer, be "a direct political
action of the church."
[17] This concept greatly influenced both Lutherans and Reformed
during the post-war period. For example, in Germany during the
1950s, marked by the tensions resulting from the Cold War and
nuclear rearmament, the expression status confessionis was
used to call the church to take sides vis-à-vis the ethical
and political challenges of the moment. Another example is the
declaration made by the LWF in Dar-es-Salaam (1977), in which the
category of status confessionis was linked to the
emergency situation created by the South African policy of
apartheid. Apartheid is contrary to the very foundation of faith;
prohibiting whites and blacks from celebrating together the Holy
Supper violates the unity and koinonia of the church. Thus
the problem is placed on the ecclesiological level: what it means
to be the church. Yet, by identifying the situation of apartheid as
a call to confession it points to the excesses or deficits of state
power in the ordering of society. Hence, apartheid is a threat to
the church as much as to the whole of society.
[18] We see then that the use of the category casus or
status confessionis permitted Lutheranism to oppose
ecclesiastically and ethically Roman Catholic medieval absolutism,
Nazi fascism and the racist policies of South Africa. These
examples shaped this confessional tradition, giving it a strong
profile signaling freedom and resistance. But while the rise of the
language of casus or status confessionis was
characterized by deep theological and ecclesiological struggles,
today's scenario is much more uncertain. The issue is not whether
or not we should confess our faith, but how appropriate it is to
turn to the concept of status confessionis to guide us in
the problems we face today. The effectiveness of this language
rested in the visible threat of counter-theologies which undermined
not only the existence of the (evangelical) church, but also the
truth of the gospel. But, where do these counter-theologies appear
today? Could we point to neoliberalism and globalization as their
contemporary incarnations?
The situation
[19] Some argue, with good reason, that neoliberal globalization
erodes not only the state's role toward the common good, but also
the stability and the very existence of societies as well as the
integrity of the gospel. The tremendous offensive of transnational
capital, the proliferation of neoliberal prescriptions, the disease
of unemployment, the decline in state social assistance,
corruption, the fleeing of local resources to service the foreign
debt-all these seem to indicate that this is a "time of
confession." But do they really endanger the truth of the gospel
and the very integrity of faith? What is really at
stake?[12]
[20] This is a concern shared by many in the ecumenical world.
The German Lutheran theologian Ulrich Duchrow, along with the
declarations from the World Alliance of Reformed Churches in Kitwe
(1995), Debrecen (1997), Buenos Aires (2003) and Accra (2004), have
called the churches to a time or process of confession in the face
of neoliberal globalization. It is argued that the ideology and
neoliberal practices represent either a violation of the First
Commandment of the Decalogue (Duchrow, following Luther), or an
affront to the covenant and sovereignty of God (following Calvin,
the Reformed churches).
[21] While they are rightly alerting the churches to the dangers
involved in neoliberal economic policies, it is valid to question
the appropriateness of approaching this problem by appealing to an
emerging status confessionis; this seems to ask too much
in the wrong place. Duchrow, for instance, concludes his analysis
of global capitalism with the utopian-messianic proposal of
emulating the biblical testimony in the book of Acts with its small
alternative communities.[13] This
posits a kind of model which could be applied to economic and
political practices. Also, in the Declaration of Buenos Aires,
Reformed churches from the South sealed its statement with a fuzzy
conception of "God's economy" as a counter-proposal to the
neoliberal economic model of the global market.[14] Certainly, its emphasis
and position challenge us to search for new solutions, but that
should not prevent us from asking if this adequately reflects the
complexity of our present moment. Does this provide an orientation
for viable practices which take into consideration the complicated
variables in our ever more complex world? If, following Bonhoeffer,
our aim is "to jam a spoke in the wheel" of neoliberalism,
prescriptions like the former ones do not provide us with the
necessary mediations, that is, the effective means with which to
jam the wheel. The "feathers" of enthusiasm are not enough.
[22] The problem is neither the pertinence of the theme
considered, nor the commitment of these documents and authors,
which we support. Instead, the quandary is two-pronged: the
interpretation and definition of the phenomenon of globalization
and the subsequent theological hermeneutics of that reality. The
first would determine our reading and definition of the phenomenon
called globalization, the second, the reformulation of our
positions and practices. Although saying so may not be popular,
frequently our efforts to search for answers fall into some kind of
moralization of the crisis, and an enthusiasm devoid of tactics. So
what we often call reality is the result of opinions rather than
analysis, superficial theological ideas (substituting social
analysis for biblical categories), or a semantic mixture that does
not help much to focus and clarify the problem.[15]
[23] Let us pursue the first direction, using some analytical
tools stemming from the realms of sociology, cultural anthropology,
political science and economics. Most of the studies dedicated to
the subject (García Canclini; Hobsbawm; Giddens; Harvey;
Negri and Hardt) indicate that the era of "globalization" cannot be
understood mono-causally, for instance, just focusing on economic
neoliberalism. Globalization is a truly systemic complex shaped by
multiple factors and dimensions whose basic structure is the
superposition of different logics and networks. Some of the factors
which make up this framework are: exploding scientific knowledge;
the acceleration of transport and communications (bringing distant
places closer together); cultural changes and how subjectivity is
perceived; the emergence of new social subjects; the crisis of the
nation-states; the growing mechanization and computerization of
production; massive migration to urban centers; the pluralization
of identities and worlds; and, of course, the new ways in which
business, trade and finance are brought together for speculative
purposes and immediate profit.
[24] The structural roots of this situation can, indeed, be
traced back to the transformation of capitalism which became an
uncontrollable reality in the 1970s (with the accelerated
transnationalization of corporate activities and new modes of
production). This unleashed a growing gap between rich and poor
countries and the social polarization within them between
globalized élites and localized masses.[16] Furthermore, it is true
that the growth of capitalism, in its neoliberal form, erodes the
cultural substratum within society, and also the state's role in
regulating and redistributing economic benefits.[17] Yet it is also true that
these phenomena developed new crisis spheres that can no longer be
satisfactorily addressed by redressing economic policies. Let us
think, for example, of the growing culture of indifference
and the primacy of the individual. These developments accompany and
legitimate the neoliberal tide. Yet they denote also cultural and
anthropological camps from where different forms of sociality may
be imagined and practiced. As a result, such diverse themes as
subjectivity, desire, gender, art, ecology-to mention only a
few-become spheres where neoliberalism may not be openly and
immediately confronted, but where its core tenets may be steadily
eroded by considering different values and ways of relating in the
world.
[25] In this way the central problem is not simply located in
the mechanisms of "empire" or economy, but includes social,
cultural and political processes, which are both susceptible to the
expanding dominion of the neoliberal logic as well as being places
of tacit resistance.[18]
Therefore, it is not so much the strength or seduction of
neoliberal ideology that must be feared, nor its advance as a
totalitarian ideology, but the expansion of its ideas and logic
into spaces that are vulnerable due to an unprecedented political
and social crisis. This crisis appears in the religious foundations
of the Christian faith as well as in the ideologies and
institutions of modernity. Thus, if as Christians we are talking
about resistance and confrontation, this should not consist of
direct "assaults" with alternative economic proposals, but rather
be based on a "war of positions" in the various domains of society
and culture, including the church. In other words, it is a struggle
around symbols and representations which may not touch the economic
core directly, but which may certainly erode its cultural
presuppositions.
[26] We live in uncertain and "liquid" times; never before have
we encountered such a volatile and complex situation. In light of
this complexity, a one-dimensional analysis of the problem of
globalization would result in a limited contribution of the
Christian church to this multi-dimensional phenomenon. If
globalization is only confronted in terms of its economic dynamic,
then old structuralist interpretations are repeated which tend to
isolate phenomena that in daily life are linked to the logic of
culture, society and institutions. Romantic prescriptions of "the
small messianic communities" or what is allegedly "God's economy"
have symbolic value, but result merely in short-term strategies for
a select group of people. In a plural, complex world, affected by
diverse interests, is this recommendable or practicable? One thing
is certain: the flutter of some moral feathers will not detain the
advance of the neoliberal Juggernaut.[19]
Jamming the wheels of the Juggernaut? Church, politics
and citizenship
[27] As tempestuous as these dynamics are, the theoretical and
ethical despair that abounds in our societies and churches should
not surprise us. This calls for interdisciplinary and
multidimensional mediations for interpreting the dynamics of
globalization in order to provide a clearer picture. This reaffirms
the methodology of liberation theology.[20] But although the social
analysis is crucial, churches have to go further. As heirs of the
tradition of the status confessionis we know how to react
to political oppression and persecution and to build resistance
from there. But a situation where there are no open attacks on the
gospel or the church, as was experienced in totalitarian
states,[21] disorients us. In the
public arena, language of "idolatry" and references to the threat
to "God's sovereignty" does not carry significant weight. The crude
reality is that economic neoliberalism associated with
globalization does not depend on a totalitarian strategy in the
sense of a political program of confrontation and domination, since
it acts as the very negation of politics. Its force lies in the
ability to penetrate the interstices and fissures of societies
undergoing serious economic, political and cultural crises. This is
why many find it difficult to analyze something which appears so
fluid, flexible, elastic, but which nonetheless keeps undermining
cultures and traditional political institutions. As sociologist
Zygmunt Bauman posits,
[28]
In order to acquire a true
capacity of becoming an entity, resistance needs an efficient and
persistent attacker. However, as a consequence of the new mobility,
capital and finances almost never find themselves in the occasion
to conquer the inflexible, sort out the obstacles, or overcome or
mitigate resistance […] capital can always leave in search
for more peaceful scenarios […] why confront that which can
be avoided?[22]
[29] In light of this, let us return to the three criteria from
the Formula of Concord and ask, How pertinent is it to
interpret our present situation theologically as a time of
confessio? The first criterion, persecution, presents us
with an obstacle: transporting into our times a language that was
devised to counteract persecution and abusive practices requires a
clear identification of today's totalitarian referents. Yet, as
Bauman points out, today we face situations that are more elusive;
they can only be "imagined" as totalitarian, but the "core" of the
system is always in flux. It is as though the pax
neoliberalis makes us imagine things in order to divert our
attention. Aren't some of the churches' social statements somewhat
quixotic? If the noble Spaniard saw enemies where there were only
windmills, today the troubled consciences of many churches and
theologians reify as idolatrous multiple and multidimensional
processes that in fact do not have any single "center" on which to
focus effective resistance.
[30] Trying to identify clear profiles in a diffuse and
multidimensional reality may help to recreate the climate which in
the past characterized some theological postures, but at the cost
of expending all energies to counter a liquid flux of power. In the
era of globalization, economic interests and forces have the
supreme capacity not only to slip away when directly attacked, but
also to ensnare vulnerable areas in the political and cultural
spheres. Hence, it is useless to accuse neoliberalism of being
idolatrous or sinful, not because from a Christian perspective this
is "untrue," but because it creates the illusion that this
sinfulness can be overcome by means of some kind of conversion or
moral offensive with a clear target. In this vein it is an
ineffectual maneuver to affirm-as the Buenos Aires Declaration
does-that neoliberal ideology entails a theological as opposed to a
biblical vision. Neoliberalism is not a theology, much less a
counter-theology, but simply an a-theology.[23] Therefore building
resistance cannot rest on these foundations.
[31] With this we advance to the second criterion from the
Formula of Concord, idolatry. Idolatry, mammon and rampant
selfishness are correctly identified as being ruthless realities in
our present context. But, to be frank, who is shaken by accusations
of idolatry, or calls to reestablish God's sovereignty? Does the
revamping of the status or processus confessionis
really affect the economic and political dynamics of our societies?
The fact is that in a pluralistic and institutionally secularized
context, this type of call to confessio does not have in
itself the power to unleash a praxis that can actually challenge
the powers that be.
[32] As for the last criterion-clear and unambiguous confession
because of the "weak in faith"-is this perhaps an urgent need? It
is, especially if we are mindful of the theological anthropology of
simul iustus et peccator. However, in light of the above,
we suspect that the reiterated call for status
confessionis seems to be more a reaction from the "weakness of
faith" in our contemporary world, than a clear affirmation of the
gospel for the sake of others. The undoubted crisis which churches
experience today may be accompanied by a more profound theological
crisis. To take refuge in new biblicisms (including "popular" and
of the "left") will not take us very far. At most, it will lead us
to combat windmills, to dilute ourselves in messianic utopianisms
or to launch a hunt for heretics (today, in the "ethical" sense
after Uppsala '68). But they will not lead us toward the
fundamental cultural and political task which the new time
requires: to reconstitute the institutional and social web as an
effective resistance and counter strategy against the onslaught of
transnational capitalism (cf. Hardt and Negri).
[33] In short, the present call to a status
confessionis against economic neoliberalism is not
appropriate. The language of confession was intended to confront
situations affecting the integrity and the truth of the gospel. It
was a call to witnessing, not a platform from which to launch
effective political action. If we adopt a broad vision of what the
gospel means, we may agree that we live in an emergency situation;
but we should do so without confusing the promise of the gospel
with that of its social realization, i.e., the gospel and the law.
Scandalous though it may sound, neoliberal globalization is not a
direct threat to the gospel. Rather, globalization undermines the
dimensions that Bonhoeffer saw as being essential to assure the
space for living together-the public sphere and the state.
Mediations, such as the law and political order, are divine-human
means of action seeking to secure peace and justice, expressing the
values of the gospel in an external and temporal form. These
mediations must neither be confused with the gospel itself, nor
become an extension of the church. Consequently, what is at stake
is neither the gospel, nor the "sovereignty" of God, nor the
church. What is affected are the world, and the human capacity to
develop cultural and political strategies of resistance and change.
In other words, it is the dimension that Lutheranism has depicted
as the "temporal" sphere, built on love and expressed through the
usus politicus legis.
[34] A theology that emphasizes these aspects could only point
us to the real danger we face: the burst of the logic of capital
into those other spheres which make life a proleptic manifestation
of the promise of the gospel. What should be given priority in
current theological work is the slow fracture of the public space
as the realm of political decisions inspired by certain moral
convictions, rather than the so-called "alternative" economic order
which Christian communities might embody once they become aware of
their confessio heritage. As Eric Hobsbawm indicates,
today humanity's destiny depends on restoring the authorities and
public structures.[24] The
public space of politics and power, of compromises and
negotiations, is the place par excellence where Christians
and non-Christians are being united by a divine call to exercise
their citizenship in favor of an order that guarantees and promotes
a peace, an equality and a justice able to prevent us from the
worst effects of asymmetrical power.
The two kingdoms revisited
[35] Proposals to combine the language of confessio
with the problems of globalization fail for three reasons: they are
articulated on the basis of a political theology that does not
explain how God relates to the political realm; they support a
moralizing solution to deep structural, cultural and social
problems; they do not promote the urgent need for exercising
citizenship in heterogeneous spaces with the goal of redressing a
rising yet unequal tide. These proposals confer a "spiritual" logic
on the "temporal," forgetting the proper mediations which govern
these two spheres. It is not sufficient to list biblical quotations
or to embellish "confessional" language with moral content,
expecting that this will mobilize a kind of counter-offensive or a
particularly Christian alternative to neoliberal globalization. In
the long term, it will create a climate of suffocation and even of
ethical and spiritual cynicism. What is at stake is too important
to fall into these traps.
[36] We need a theological vision that can help us to visualize
not only all the dangers neoliberalism poses for the gospel, but
mostly for the world. Consequently, a good theological
interpretation should account for action by the church as well as
by citizens in their different spheres. For the Christian
conscience, both spheres are closely linked, but even so, they have
to be differentiated. Without the gospel, which forms the
ekklesia, there would be no record of the promise that
awaits creation. From there we engage in a world from a vision and
from values of an order based on God's peace and justice; this
nourishes our public engagement.[25]
Nonetheless, from a political perspective, the church is not an apt
instrument for efficiently working out these values. It is not that
the church cannot do so institutionally when the situation allows
it, but because the core of its existence, the gospel, is not in
itself an efficient means for realizing this political project.
Here we see the importance of political and civic vocation, without
which there would not be any chance to implement the human and
social values we consider essential. Theological discourse should
emphasize the peculiar world that the Christian practice of faith
and love creates. It can also highlight the necessary political and
civic mediation to realize these values, while acknowledging the
variables in spheres in which so many interests converge.
Theological discourse creates an essential space for socialization
through narratives and stories which offer meaning and a sense of
identity, while the political is affirmed as an indispensable
instrument to realize collective goals.
[37] Once more, we can learn from Luther and Bonhoeffer, whose
perspectives maintain at the same time the unique role of the
gospel and the church, as well as the relevance and mandate of
social and political action. They knew that the "spiritual" and the
"temporal" are means by which God does his work in order in Christ
to recapitulate all things. But while in the "spiritual" sphere the
means of action is God as Holy Spirit, in the secular field divine
action is mediated and refracted through social institutions and
orderings. In the spiritual field, there are no ambiguities, since
the task is that of communicating agape as an eternal
attribute. In the temporal field, the law exists as an instrument
to harmonize divergent human interests; justice is furthered in the
midst of people's asymmetric demands. The political and public
organizations are institutional mediations for implementing
the goals of such justice.
[38] In this way a dynamic theory of the two
kingdoms[26] would permit us to
maintain the radicalism of the call of the gospel, so that
Christianity is not diluted into a kind of moralism that is really
useless for both church and world. In this aeon we cannot solely
live out of the gospel; nor can we exclusively seek to restore
God's "sovereignty" or project ecclesial practice on the whole of
society. But a dynamic vision of God's twofold regiment calls
Christians to live out their political life by exercising
citizenship, which always implies the use of power according to
ends that agree with the heart of the evangelical promise.
[39] When we lack the appropriate theological framework,
status confessionis or similar language appears to become
associated with proposals that are somehow disproportionate and
cannot become effective in history. In the real world, there is no
direct line from our (Christian) values to their socio-political
mediations. We cannot transpose our alleged "holiness" onto the
world, nor find an appropriate political expression for our
commitment to and love for the poor. Without recovering a faith
that is mediated through political action, we will continue
attempting to jam the destructive wheels of neoliberal
globalization with weak, yet colorful, feathers.
[40] If we do not recover this call to public life and
citizenship, we will fall into one of the most dangerous traps of
this Juggernaut: disappointment with politics, saying-as
Argentines frequently tend to do in times of turmoil-"let all of
them [politicians] go away." True, politics is in crisis, but to
ignore it and withdraw from commitment because "all politicians are
corrupt" is to play with the specter of authoritarianism and/or to
favor the wantonness of neoliberal strategies. Politics should be
legitimated anew as a field for searching for solidarity and
equitable goals, but without false illusions or utopianism. In such
circumstances, and especially in the midst of crisis and
corruption, not to be engaged in militant citizenship means to work
"against love" (Luther).
[41] The categories of the two regiments thus liberate us from
the anxiety and anguish of believing that all alternatives should
be borne on Christian shoulders, or to believe that all that
happens in the world seems to be a plot against Christian values.
Likewise, it gives us a new framework for interpretation,
emphasizing the world of politics. The public arena is the space
where we live out our Christian and civic vocation, and where the
counterproposals against disillusion could be channeled. In this
way, we avoid falling into the same logic which imposes an
economic-reductionistic interpretation of globalization. We
reaffirm, with Hobsbawm, the importance of motivating a new ethical
commitment within public institutions and democratic political
parties-the only means of stopping the pillage. This requires a
cultural revolution, not moral hysteria. A revolution which
embodies new forms of citizenship-even on a global scale.
[42] Lastly, the theory of the two kingdoms allows us to place
the language of confession along the lines suggested by Bonhoeffer.
If the epoch of Nazi totalitarianism meant too much state
(Zuviel), our times are characterized by too little state
(Zuwenig). This implies by no means a call for a bygone
omnipresent state, nor limiting our conception of state to
the "nation-state" model. Rather, it is a call to engage with the
very idea of state and public realm and its multiple requirements
and contributions to civil society, globally as well as locally. A
strengthening of democracy, citizen's participation, intermediate
organizations and a positive appreciation of politics, are the
indispensable tools to combat the growing ruptures and social
inequalities. It is legitimate to claim that a weak state poses a
status confessionis for the church inasmuch as we affirm
that God is acting in the world not only through the church, but
also through the state and public institutions to support spaces
for life and equity.
[43] A call for a status confessionis should clarify
that the challenge of the neoliberal Juggernaut obliges
the church to speak out, not because its essence is under direct
attack, but because the field of public institutions is under the
pressure of an avalanche of unprecedented proportions. Our
confessio is a call to collaborate in promoting
citizenship and to reject the illusion that of being consumers of
the twenty-first century in the garb of citizens of the
eighteenth.[27]
Published with permission from the Lutheran World Federation
Documentation book series. Karen L Bloomquist (ed.).
Communion, Responsibility, Accountability. Responding as a Lutheran
Communion to Neoliberal Globalization, Documentation No. 50.
Individual copies out of the series are available for $13 US.
Order through the Lutheran World Federation:
liesch@lutheranworld.org.
© February 2005
Journal of Lutheran Ethics (JLE)
Volume 5, Issue 2
[1] See, Toward an Economy in the
Service of Life. A Report of an Ecumenical Journey, pp. 51ff. in
this publication.
[2] "Formula of Concord, Article X
(1577)," in Theodore G. Tappert (ed.), The Book of Concord,
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1959)
[3] See Eugene TeSelle," How do we
recognize a status confessionis?," in Theology Today 45/1 (April
1988).
[4] See Martin Schloemann, " The
Special Case for Confessing: Reflections on the Casus Confessionis
(Dar es Salaam 1977) in the Light of History and Systematic
Theology," in Eckehart Lorenz (ed.), The Debate on Status
Confessions. Studies in Christian Political Theology, LWF Studies
(Geneva: The Lutheran World Federation, 1983), pp. 55ff.
[5] "Formula of Concord, Article X,"
op. cit. (note 2), p. 493.
[6] See Robert Bertram, "Confessing as
Re-Defining Authority: Ethical Implications of Augsburg's 'Time for
Confessing'," in Lorenz, op. cit. (note 4), pp. 95ff.
[7] Schloemann, op. cit. (note 4), p.
55.
[8] Geffery B. Kelly and F. Burton
Nelson (eds), A Testament to Freedom. The Essential Writings of
Dietrich Bonhoeffer (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1990), pp.
138-139.
[9] Ibid., pp. 139-140.
[10] Guillermo Hansen, "La
crítica cristológica de Bonhoeffer a la
hermenéutica 'pseudoluterana' de las dos esferas," Lumen:
Revista de estudos e pesquisa da religiao VI/1 (Jan-June 2003).
[11] Bonhoeffer, op. cit. (note 8), p.
139.
[12] A good example, although taken
from the Reformed camp, are the declarations of the chairperson of
the "Alliance of Presbyterian and Reformed Churches in Latin
America" (AIPRAL), the Rev. Germán Zijistra. His opinions
are shared by many Lutherans. See Nuevo Siglo (Quito) 4/8 (agosto
2004) p.9. Let us notice however that the churches within the LWF
have not called to a confessio against globalization, but to a
double strategy: the strengthening of the practice of the Lutheran
global communion as a space of ethical formation, and to engage in
practices and policies of citizenship affirming just and equitable
systems. See, "Engaging Economic Globalization as a Communion" in
this publication, pp. 21ff.
[13] Ulrich Duchrow, "El Cristianismo
en el contexto de los mercados capitalistas globalizados,"
Concilium 57/2 (1997), p. 261.
[14] Foro Sur-Sur de las iglesias
miembro de la ARM, "Declaración de fe sobre la crisis global
de la vida," Mundo Reformado 54/1 (March 2004), pp. 45-57, here p.
50.
[15] Cf. Clodovis Boff,
Teología de lo Político: sus mediaciones (Salamanca:
Sígueme, 1980), pp. 67ff.
[16] See Zygmunt Bauman, La
globalización: consecuencias humanas (Buenos Aires: FCE,
1999), p. 8.
[17] See Eric Hobsbawm, The Age of
Extremes: A History of the World, 1914-1989 (New York: Vintage
Books, 1996), pp. 343 and 408.
[18] This is one of Michel Hardt's and
Antonio Negri's thesis, in Multitude: War and Democracy in the Age
of Empire (New York: Penguin Press, 2004).
[19] The Juggernaut is an image that
Anthony Giddens borrowed from Hindu mythology in order to describe
the situation of uncontrolled instability and catastrophe which
characterizes modern societies. The Juggernaut or Jagannath-which
carries the image of the god Krishna-was taken in procession and
many faithful threw themselves under the wheels as a sacrifice to
the deity. Anthony Giddens, Consecuencias de la Modernidad (Madrid:
Alianza Editorial, 1993), p. 58.
[20] Cf. Gustavo Gutiérrez,
"Mirar lejos," in Páginas 93 (1988), pp. 63-97.
[21] Of course there are other types
of "attacks" and "dangers" but they have to do with the postmodern
and culturally pluralistic social context in which we live. But it
would be an exaggeration to speak of a deliberate attack on the
gospel.
[22] Bauman, op. cit. (note 16), pp.
19f.
[23] The notion of neo-liberalism as
theology was popularized in the 1990s by the historian Eric
Hobsbawm. But many fail to identify the irony with which he
"theologizes" neoliberalism: for Hobsbawm neoliberalism is
"theology" because it lacks the scientific basis and hence it
cannot be refuted in the sense of Popper's criteria. Hobsbawm by no
means suggests that the liberal economists have quasi-religious
pretensions or even that theology would be a praxis that would free
or transform the hard objective realities. See Hobsbawn, op. cit.
(note 17), pp. 547f.
[24] Ibid., p. 577.
[25] See Guillermo Hansen, "La
comunidad cristiana: el encanto de una práctica," Cuadernos
de Teología XVIII (1999), p. 38.
[26] Ulrich Duchrow has been one of
the most important theologians recuperating this theory derived
from Luther. However it is strange that it is not used more
vigorously in his recent discussions about the church and
globalization.
[27] See Néstor García
Canclini, Consumidores y ciudadanos: conflictos multiculturales de
la globalización (México: Grijalbo, 1995).