Theology as a Critical Discourse

The word “theology” has been used in various meanings. I will point to three of them, acknowledging that in actual theological practices and especially in the social life of Christianity, these meanings often blend and overlap without clear boundaries.

Theology as a Mystical Practice

Theology understood this way does not mean obtaining particular information, i.e., particular knowledge aboutGod. It rather means acquiring the Wisdom of God, that is, the capacity to know, see, and understand in a way similar to how God knows. This knowledge, as wisdom, is thus not so much about “what” as it is about “how.”

Christian theologians from Evagrius Ponticus, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Gregory of Nazianzus, all the way to modern authors such as Vladimir Lossky, spoke about theology and theological understanding in terms of prayer, sacredness, belief, light, love, and beauty.

The proper method for the verbalization of this theology is apophaticism. Expressing theology as a mystical practice/experience is an aspiration to express the inexpressible. Therefore, it does not make any sense from the perspective of this theology to analyze or dissect the “object” of the analysis. Instead, this theology aspires to preserve the mystery of the knowledge of God by allowing us to participate in that mystery. The truth of this theology is not pre-given, it does not have a compelling character, it is not a necessity – it is constituted through love, comes out of freedom, and affirms our creativity. Theology understood this way is inseparable from the mystical practice and the liturgical sacrificial offering. The verbal expression of this theology often uses paradoxical formulations, doxological language, metaphors, allegories, aphorisms, bodily movements and expressions, as well as humor.

However, because of the very means that this method uses, it can easily get trivialized. Instead of using often paradoxical formulations to express the inexpressible mystical experience – the fire of burning love – under the guise of “mysticism” and “apophaticism,” one often encounters empty phrases, intellectual and spiritual infertility, or simply nonsense. Trivial nonsense is what is often paraded as “deep wisdom.” One should thus be cautious not to confuse a serious and proper use of the apophatic method with its banal imitations.

Theology as an Academic Discourse

Theology can be understood as an analytical and critical discourse, a “discipline” whose methods are shared with other disciplines within the humanities. Theology has functioned as an academic field for a long time, but approaches to this field vary from those that do not see any tension between theology as a mystical practice and the acquisition of particular knowledge of, say, Church history, patristic theology, etc., to those that sharply differentiate between “serious” academic theology and “spirituality.”

Theology is sometimes even called “science,” which does sound strange in contemporary English where “science” does not mean simply “knowledge” in general but primarily refers to “hard sciences,” e.g., physics (see “Theology is scientific reflection on the divine revelation which the Church accepts by faith as universal saving truth”, International Theological Commission - https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_doc_20111129_teologia-oggi_en.html).

It is not uncommon nowadays to come across those who understand theology as a synonym for “religious studies,” i.e., a non-confessional analysis of religious phenomena where there is little or no place for one’s faith or prayer, where the lack of any religious affiliation is considered even an advantage.

Theology as Ideology

In its social/political life, theology often functions as ideology, where religious narratives, symbols, and interpretations are used to “make sense” of the political sphere, to explain and rationalize social processes. In the majority of its expressions, this theology/ideology has, historically, justified dominant political systems and their power structures, unless these are openly anti-church. This kind of theology is preferred by both the state and the institutional church.

One could also talk in this context about prophecies and prophetic theology that operates within the political/ideological sphere. Here, theology can function as a critical discourse where individuals or marginalized groups speak on behalf of God against those in power. An example of this is found in the famous story from the Old Testament about the encounter between Prophet Elijah and King Ahab:

"And Ahab went to meet Elijah. When Ahab saw Elijah, Ahab said to him, ‘Is it you, you troubler of Israel?’ And he answered, ‘I have not troubled Israel, but you have, and your father’s house, because you have abandoned the commandments of the Lord and followed the Baals.’" (1 Kings 18:16-18)

The pattern is a familiar one: those who advance criticism against those in power are often reproached as the “trouble-makers,” those who hate the collective they belong to, who do not share in the collective’s values. Those in power are, of course, those who charge themselves with speaking on behalf of that collective, that is, on behalf of social structures that keep them in power. So not the King but Elijah becomes the one who “troubles” Israel. All too familiar – how many times have we heard that he or she is “anti-Serbian” or “anti-Russian” when one advances criticism toward the political elites in these countries? One also often hears of those who are “anti-European” or “anti-American” when one dares to criticize the corruption, incompetence, and arrogance of Western political and business elites and especially their imperial policies and structural violence that capitalist power structures promote. If one criticizes the non-democratic and even anti-democratic character of our current political and ideological setup in the West, one will most probably be accused, by the same power structures, as an “enemy of democracy.”

However, apart from this general pattern of the dynamic between those in power and those who criticize them, the above given Biblical quote situates this dynamic within a religious-metaphysical setting where the prophet acts on behalf of God against a particular exponent of political power and its abuse, which leads to idolatry. Thus, we are faced with the question of how religious ideas and narratives relate to political power and its abuse, and how we can, in that context, articulate the role of theology.

Political theology articulates the Christian relationship toward the socio-political sphere. When this is done correctly (from my perspective at least), the result is paradoxical. The paradox stems from the paradoxical presence of Christians, Christianity, and the Church in this world. Christians are the “citizens” of the Kingdom of God, but they are also citizens of earthly societies, cities, and states. The paradox is the result of the tension between the eschaton and history, where we are called to transform the world which “lies in wickedness.” “This world,” which in the New Testament is contrasted to the Kingdom of God, does not mean simply the “world” or the entirety of God’s creation. It means a particular logic of being manifested in necessity and death. The “world” as creation is there to be transformed into the realm of freedom and brought into communion with God.

The political sphere is where the logic of “this world” is paradigmatically manifested. Its logic is based on the exercise of power and domination (even when various regulations and democratic means are employed to codify power relations or prevent an excess of power). This is why theology needs to always mind the gap between the Christian focus on the reality of the Kingdom of God – as a meta-historical reality – and the logic of necessity which is attached to our existence in this world. This also means keeping the tension between not only the Church as the Icon of the Kingdom of God (manifested in liturgy) and the State (as an institution of “this world”), but also between the Church as the Icon and the church as an institution.

This is the source of my “anarchist” theological approach, i.e. theology as a critical discourse. It implies a critical examination of power structures and oppression regardless of the form they may take, in the name of human freedom and dignity. Christian theology teaches us that there cannot be the Kingdom of God within history as we know it. The Kingdom of God brings “new being,” based on freedom and love.

This, however, should not be an excuse for passivity. Theology as a critical discourse means that we should remain vigilant, actively and creatively engaged in unmasking, delegitimizing, and, finally, dismantling power structures and the illegitimate exercise of power (especially when oppression is done in the name of Christianity), regardless of the form power and oppression may take. This, from the Christian perspective, is done not in the name of some abstract humanism but as a manifestation of the faith that every human being is an icon of the living God, and that freedom and love constitute the very “stuff” out of which our eschatological existence is made.

Davor Džalto