Authority of Conscience: Legitimizing a Theology of the Political in Democratic Society

The article dicusses the theologico-political relationship in modern liberal democracies. The author contrasts two approaches to understanding the relationship between religion and politics: political religion, which strives for complete coincidence of religious and political spheres, and the theology of the political, based on the principle of their de-coincidence. Exploring the historical evolution of these relations from Antiquity through medieval Christianity to modernity, the author demonstrates how Christianity first introduced the principle of de-coincidence between theological and political dimensions, which was subsequently lost in the modern era. Special attention is paid to analyzing the works of modern philosophers (Hobbes, Spinoza, Locke, Rousseau) who laid the foundations for the contemporary understanding of relations between religion and politics. The central thesis of the article is that modern liberal democracies suffer from the absence of a legitimate form of relationship between religious and political dimensions. The author proposes the concept of “theology of the political,” based on the principle of de-coincidence, as a way to overcome this crisis. This approach allows avoiding both complete separation of religious and political spheres and their merger in the form of civil religion. The article argues that the legitimacy of theological discourse in the public sphere should be based not on the external authority of religious dogma, but on theology’s ability to create space for critical reflection on political order and social norms. This is particularly important in the context of contemporary challenges such as the migration crisis, bioethical debates, multiculturalism, and religious pluralism. The author concludes that overcoming the current crisis of liberal democracies requires revisiting both the principles of modernity and the role of religion in the public sphere. The author concludes that genuine autonomy of the political subject paradoxically requires recognition of its fundamental non-autonomy, which constitutes the essence of the democratic paradox most fully expressed in the Christian tradition.

1. Agamben G. (2017) Le mystère du mal. Benoît XVI et la fin. Paris: Bayard (French translation).

2. Bodin J. (1984) Colloque entre savants qui sont de différents sentiments secrets cachés des choses relevées (F. Berriot, Ed.). Geneva: Droz (in French).

3. Bodin J. (1986) Les six livres de la République. Paris: Fayard (in French).

4. Bourdin B. (2015) Le christianisme et la question du théologico-politique. Paris: Cerf (in French).

5. Bourdin B. (2018) République laïque et Eglise catholique. Études. No. 6, pp. 67–76 (in French).

6. Bourdin B. (2022) Christian Messianism: An Alternative Political Philosophy of Emancipaion. Russian Journal of Philosophical Sciences = Filosofskie nauki. Vol. 65, no. 4, pp. 7–26.

7. Bourdin B. (2023a) Le théologico-politique est-il une imposture? Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques. No. 107, pp. 157–172 (in French).

8. Bourdin B. (2023b) Le chrétien peut-il aussi être citoyen? Paris: Cerf (in French).

9. Breton S. (1977) Politique, religion, écriture chez Spinoza. Paris: Desclée (in French).

10. Calvin J. (1999) Institutes of the Christian Religion. Book IV (G.V. Vdovina, Trans.). Grand Rapids, MI: CRC Publications (Russian translation).

11. Dagron G. (1996) Empereur et prêtre. Étude sur le « césaropapisme » byzantin. Paris: Gallimard (in French).

12. Doremus A. (2000) Une vue « critique » de Carl Schmitt sur la philosophie de l'histoire en 1950 « Trois possibilités d'une image chrétienne de l’histoire ». Les Etudes philosophiques. No. 3, pp. 405–421.

13. Fustel de Coulanges N.D. (2010) The Ancient City: A Study on the Religion, Laws, and Institutions of Greece and Rome (N.N. Spiridonov, Trans.). Moscow: URSS (Russian translation).

14. Hobbes T. (2001) Leviathan, or The Matter, Forme and Power of a Common Wealth Ecclesiasticall and Civil (A. Guterman, Trans.). Moscow: Mysl’ (Russian translation).

15. Jullien F. (2018) Ressources du christianisme: mais sans y entrer par la foi. Paris: L’Herne (in French).

16. Jullien F. (2022) Moïse ou la Chine. Quand ne se déploie pas l'idée de Dieu. Paris: Observatoire (in French).

17. Jullien F. (2023) Rouvrir des possibles. Dé-coïncidence, un art d'opérer. Paris: Observatoire (in French).

18. Locke J. (1988) A Letter Concerning Toleration. In: Locke J. Works (Vol. 3, pp. 91–134) (N.A. Fedorov, Trans.). Moscow: Mysl’ (Russian translation).

19. Luther M. (1994) On Secular Authority: To What Extent It Should Be Obeyed. In: Luther M. Selected Works (pp. 131–163) (Yu. Golubkin, Trans.). Saint Petersburg: Andreyev i soglasie (Russian translation).

20. Muhlmann G. (2022) L’imposture du théologico-politique. Paris: Belles Lettres (in French).

21. Schmitt C. (2011) La visibilité de l’Eglise, Catholicisme romain et forme politique, Donoso Cortés (A. Doremus, Trans.; B. Bourdin, Intro.). Paris: Cerf (French translation).

22. Schmitt C. (2016) The Concept of the Political (A.F. Filippov, Trans.). In: Schmitt C. The Concept of the Political: Collected Works (pp. 280–408). Saint Petersburg: Nauka (Russian translation).

23. Spinoza B. (2019) Theologico-Political Treatise (M.M. Lopatkin, Trans.). Moscow: Academicheskiy proyekt (Russian translation).

24. Stoczkowski W. (2019) La science sociale comme vision du monde. Paris: Gallimard (in French).

25. Voegelin E. (1994) Les religions politiques. Paris: Cerf (French translation).