|
Religion and Public Policy: Human Rights, Conflict, and Ethics, edited by Sumner B. Twiss, Marian Gh. Simion, Rodney L. Petersen (Cambridge University Press, 2015)
The Ambiguous Social Character of Religion
#7 in series
Rev. Rodney Petersen, PhD
CMM Executive Director Emeritus
The unfolding of the “Arab Spring” as well as current political debate in the U.S. reminds us of the ambiguous social character of religion for statecraft arising from its necessary and independent voice in political affairs (1). Thus far, we have argued for the self-conscious role of religious actors in multi-track diplomacy. This is necessary if not always offering a clear path or set of procedures. Still, three points that arise in the Christian tradition with varying degrees of applicability to all religions offer a word of caution. Each draws us back to Freud’s observations about religion made in the second essay in this series, its functions, and the world views that come into play with religious actors.
First, religion will always be an unstable partner to official (Track I) diplomacy. Religion finds its limitations for public policy from the fact that it locates itself in a larger moral order than that of the state – Freud’s sense of direction to be derived from a world view. This is the prophetic role of religion as documented classically for its social function by theorists such as Max Weber and Ernst Troeltsch. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, this is seen in the text which finds the anointing of a king over Israel (Saul) accompanied by the establishment of the office of prophet (I Samuel 8-10). Among Christians, the New Testament bears a certain ambiguity toward the state as illustrated in contradictory visions raised up in Romans 13 (authority as established by God) and Revelation 13 (the state as a destructive beast) (2).
Second, Freud reminds us of the priestly role of religion when he writes of religion’s function to comfort and provide for our ultimate happiness. Often in tension with the prophetic role of religion, sociologist Peter Berger reminds us of the way in which religion may be employed to legitimate “social institutions by bestowing upon them an ultimately valid ontological status, that is, by locating them within a sacred and cosmic frame of reference.” Religion has been employed to create taken-for-granted worldviews that often allow “the institutional order [to] be so interpreted as to hide, as much as possible, its constructed character” (3). We are well aware of the fact by now that many of the conflicts that employ religion or draw upon religious imagery do so in order to “mask” other political, economic or socio-ethnic grievances (4).
Third, beyond the prophetic and priestly functions of religion, there is an additional factor which relates to the complexity of multi-track diplomacy in contemporary political affairs – the question of what “identity” religion represents. Political theorist Jayne Docherty, from the Conflict Resolution Program of Eastern Mennonite University, writes of the complexity today in strategic negotiations with the active political participation of Non-Governmental Organizations (5). Such organizations, which can build social capital by building and enlarging upon official Track I diplomacy also bring their own agendas which may be different in greater or lesser ways from official statecraft. In the end, however, this is a reason to keep religion at the table, working and bargaining with others in good faith.
The dialogue and mutual understanding that can arise underscores the value of such cross-boundary institutions as the World Council of Churches, the World Jewish Congress, Parliament of World Religions, the Alliance for Civilization and that of the Muslim scholars, clerics and intellectuals, issuing, A Common Word Between Us and You.
In our next and final essay in this series on “Religion and Plurality: Peacemaking, Peacebuilding, and Peacekeeping,” scheduled for November 3, 2024, we will conclude this eight-part series with thoughts on “Religion and the Zero-Sum Option for Theological Education.”
Footnotes
1. Matthew Ritter, “Universal Rights Talk/Plurality of Voices: A Philosophical-Theological Hearing,” in Religion and International Law by Mark W. James and Carolyn Evans eds. (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2004) 417-482.
2. Walter Wink, “Facing the Myth of Redemptive Violence,” in Christian Peacemaker Teams (Aug 23, 2006).
3. Peter Berger, The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion (Anchor Books, 1969) 33.
4. Scott Appleby, The Ambivalence of the Sacred (Rowman and Littlefield, 1999); and see Raymond Helmick, “Does Religion Fuel or Heal in Conflicts?” in Helmick and Petersen, Forgiveness and Reconciliation, 81-96.
5. Jayne Seminare Docherty, The Little Book of Strategic Negotiation: Negotiating During Turbulent Times (Good Books, 2005).
| 
