A renaissance of religions is indubitably underway. That applies not only to Islam; Christian revivalist movements are also gaining ground around the globe. It is a phenomenon that quite obviously contradicts the assumption underpinning modernisation whereby complex, nuanced societies are increasingly secularised.

The »enlightened left« in particular has trouble with this. Haven’t people’s religious concerns long been finished off thanks to the logic of the historical process? Marx’s »Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right« appears to confirm this hypothesis: »Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness.« Human beings finally come to their senses through the critique of religion. »It is, therefore, the task of history, once the other-world of truth has vanished, to establish the truth of this world. It is the immediate task of philosophy, which is in the service of history, to unmask self-estrangement in its unholy forms once the holy form of human self-estrangement has been unmasked. Thus, the criticism of Heaven turns into the criticism of Earth, the criticism of religion into the criticism of law, and the criticism of theology into the criticism of politics.« (MEW 1: 378 ff.) However, in contrast to a vulgar materialistic reading, in the »Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right« Marx also treats religious faith as a source of revolution: »Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering.«

[b]History as »Heilsgeschichte«, a history of salvation[/b]
Whilst Christianity expects redemption in the inner being of the soul, for Marx emancipation of humans occurs in the public space of history. If one adheres to the line of argument put forward by religious studies scholars such as Eric Voegelin or Jacob Taubes, philosophy of history is not free of »theological flies«: it interprets human history as a meaningful event, which ultimately leads to the collapse of the bourgeois-capitalist world and to communism. In their view, Marx simply secularised the religious notion of the »messianic age« when he imagined a classless society.

Indeed from the Christian (and also Jewish) point of view, history does not unfold in an endless cycle of coming into being and then dying away. Instead divine creation stands at the start of creation and the conclusion of the process is redemption. History is the history of salvation, constantly bringing forth something new and steering towards a clear end-point. And at the end of the whole cycle stands the Last Judgement.

The conception of the Last Judgement was sketched out already in the Old Testament and is merely fine-tuned in the New Testament. Teaching concerning »the last things« (= eschatology) relates to a comprehensive narrative, which I only have scope to outline here in a few keywords: the Day of Judgement is preceded by a number of events, for, to cite the Apostle Paul (the actual founder of the Christian Church) in his Second Letter to the Thessalonians, before this day »there shall come a falling away and the son of perdition shall be revealed«. The Antichrist. He will seduce all those who refuse to »love the truth« and then cast them to destruction. Then the Lord shall appear and slay the lawless one »with the breath of his mouth«. The Last Judgement is announced through the forces of nature being turned on their head: the wheat is separated from the chaff and thus a final judgement is passed for the afterlife (paradise or hell).

»The Revelation to John« is unbeatable in terms of apocalyptic drama. The text was transcribed towards the end of the 1st century, in an era when Christians were suffering persecution. Against the backdrop of these events, John, an important authority figure in the congregation in Asia Minor, wrote down his visions. In dazzling images of horror earthly power is depicted here as the irreconcilable enemy of the Christian Church, as the Antichrist. In the apostle’s view, Rome had become a demonic power, the final struggle with evil had already begun: the Messiah would return, slay the entire horde of the godless by fire and the sword and establish the kingdom of paradise on earth. The few elect (»holy remnant«) will be given refuge there for a thousand years. When that epoch (»millennium«) draws to a close, the dead will be resurrected and the Last Judgement will occur.

But when will we see the »lifting of the veil« (= apocalypse)? Within apocalyptic thinking it is not simply a matter of longing for the last days: one lives with the knowledge that the end is nigh. The Christians of Antiquity in particular longed fervently for the return of the Lord. However, when the »parousie« or Second Coming (»arrival of the messiah«) took its time happening, leading theologians began to reinterpret the revelation to John as a purely spiritual metaphor. After the Emperor Constantine (300 AD) declared Christianity the official state religion, the Fathers of the Church, who had now acquired power, condemned these millennial visions as misleading heretical teachings. Believers were admonished instead to pray for the preservation of the state, which provided protection from barbarians and from chaos. Whilst previously Rome was held to be the »Whore of Babylon«, it now moved closer to the idea of the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the coming Kingdom of God.

However it was never possible to suppress the mobilising force of apocalyptic tradition entirely. Knowledge about the»lifting of the veil of being« was kept alive through the figure of the Antichrist, which was part of the standard repertoire of Church doxa. Messianic and chiliastic (= thousand) revivalist movements shook the feudal order, in particular during the crisis-ridden early modern age. One need only think of Thomas Müntzer and the Anabaptists, who formed, so to speak the »Left« within the Lutheran Reformation. Friedrich Engels or Marxist philosopher Ernst Bloch saw them as the predecessors of the Communist movement.

A new way of thinking began to develop in the late 17th century after the painful experience of bloody wars of religion. The emerging modern sciences steadily stripped Biblical cosmology of its magic, and new philosophical interrogations gnawed away at the authority of the church. The formation of absolutist territorial power, which gained ground as a sovereign factor promoting order due to the confusion during the wars of religion and civil wars, helped to take some of the heat out of controversial religious questions through the notion of tolerance. Public concerns were now no longer subject to the rule of conscience, but fell instead within the sole sphere of competence of aristocratic rulers. Provided that subjects were obedient, rulers paid little heed to their inner convictions. The sovereign demanded moral neutrality of his subjects yet at the same time left them a private sphere separated from the state and from society, a realm reserved to people’s individual convictions. As a result, the distinction between politics and religion that even today is considered one of the crucial achievements of modernity gradually began to take shape.

As a result of the process of secularisation in Western Europe, it gradually became impossible to reduce evil to a common denominator in terms of »Heilsgeschichte«, or the interpretation of history in the light of God’s saving grace. Similarly, particularly in liberal Protestantism, there were increased efforts to remove the Old Testament from the Bible. The Jewish God of creation, with his violent capriciousness and vengefulness, could not be identical with the lamb of God of pure love. The ramifications of this separation of the Creator-God and the Saviour-God can still be felt today: just think of the sweet sandal-wearing hippy Jesus, who really, really loves everyone.

[b]And the Bible is right after all![/b]
Whilst absolutism and the Enlightenment did succeed in penning in religious agitation, the yearning for the heavenly Jerusalem remained rampant. The colonies in North America in particular developed into a haven for Protestant sects. The Puritan Pilgrim Fathers should be cited first and foremost here: they began to settle in New England and to establish a theocratic order there in keeping with the provisions of Moses’ law.

The origins of what is known as the evangelical movement lie in the revivalist movements, which had gripped the country at regular intervals over and over again since the 18th century and left a profound mark on US society. This is an exceedingly heterogeneous strand of faith, ranging from the Reformed churches, with their strict belief in predestination, right through to the radical pacifist Mennonites. The movement is held together by literalist Biblical exegesis, an emphasis on individual conversion and a sense of proselytising mission. In his study on fundamentalism in the United States, cultural historian Michael Hochgeschwender points out that evangelical devoutness also had progressive traits. The »enlightened« were modern to an extent, at least in as much as they advocated capitalism and »grassroots democracy« and asserted the right to subjective, individual piety in opposition to institutional hierarchisation of interpretation of faith.

In the beginning of the 20th century, when more liberal theological opinions acquired greater influence and also began to open up to the modern humanities and natural sciences, a vigorous debate on the theory of evolution and the interpretation of the Biblical creation narrative flared up within US Protestantism. Moves were afoot to ban teaching of Darwin’s work at public schools, given that, according to the evangelicals’ credo, the earth could be at most 6,000 years old,. As a matter of fact, decrees to this effect were adopted in a number of states. It was not until 1968 that the Supreme Court declared such legislation to be anti-constitutional. However the Christian anti-evolutionists did not give up. Instead they attempted to give a scientific countenance to their own religious convictions. One of the measures adopted to that end was the establishment of the Institute for Creation Science in 1970. The thesis known as creationism asserts that the only way to explain how the earth came into being and how life developed is in terms of the Biblical creation narrative.

One paradoxical consequence of the emancipation movements in the 1960s and 1970s is that over the last decades the evangelicals have once again developed into an important force shaping opinions. The »cultural revolution« back then provoked vigorous counter-reactions in some parts of US society. The fundamentalists systematically attempt to increase their influence on politics through topics such as school prayers, abortion, pornography, homosexuality, family values and creationism. If presidential candidates want to have any prospect of success they must make considerable concessions to this kind of religious group in their election campaigning, for an entire one-third of all US citizens proclaim themselves »born-again Christians«. Middle-class suburban enclaves where an arch-conservative set of values holds sway are the strongholds of the evangelicals. People there are proud of their own achievements and distance themselves from the »losers« in the inner cities. The close links between neo-fundamentalism and economic liberalism are thus directly rooted in suburbs.

Whilst the creationists have now succeeded in convincing large portions of the US public that evolutionary theory is untrue or at least incomplete, eschatological movements that turn their back on the world have so far remained a peripheral phenomenon. What is more symptomatic is the commercial success of evangelical preacher Tim LaHaye, currently one of the most popular authors in the United States. His apocalyptic novels of the end of time, grouped under the general title »Left Behind«, which depict with great gusto the bloody slaughter among unbelievers who resist conversion, have already sold over 60 million copies.

Alongside the evangelicals, the Pentecostalist movement is another influential school of belief. Their members are inspired by direct experience of the Holy Spirit as the third person of the »Holy Trinity«. Whilst evangelicals are guided in their actions by a literal reading of the Holy Scriptures, the force driving the faith of the»Pentecostalists« stems from their subjective, personal encounter with the heavenly powers. This experience, which is also expressed in forms of rapture and trance states, is an essential component of charismatic services. Healings of the sick form the »highlight« at these services: the blind are made to see, the lame get up and walk again. Similarly to the evangelicals, Pentecostalists set great store by the independence of local congregations, as well as having a strong media focus and being patriotic. In particular they accept capitalist wealth unreservedly.

The vitality of the US religious market stems above all from its pluralist structure. There’s exactly the right church on offer for every single identity – whether you’re a pacifist vegetarian or a weapon-mad patriot. This kind of tailor-made divinity is much closer to believers than could ever be the case in institutionalised European churches.

The Pentecostalist movement in particular is really a global phenomenon. Urbanist Mike Davis has pointed out that this current has become a counterpart to Islamic fundamentalism in many African and Latin American slums as a religion of the masses. It fills the ideological vacuum produced by the absence of the Left since the 1980s. By now Christianity is no longer a Western phenomenon, at least in terms of the majority of its adherents; instead two-thirds of Christians live in the Tricont. Religious studies scholars presume that the Christian churches of the 21st century will be strongly influenced by the fundamentalist, anti-liberal claims of revivalist movements.

In Europe too: here it is worth noting an initiative from the Culture Committee of the Council of Europe from 2007, urging Member States not to allow creationism to be taught in schools as an academic discipline on an equal footing with the theory of evolution. This intervention was occasioned by growing attempts by politicians in countries such as the Netherlands, Poland, Germany and Italy to open up schools to creationism. By the way, the resolution on »The dangers of creationism« was rejected by a small majority in the vote in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

[b]The legacy of Christianity[/b]
Parallel to the renaissance of religions, there is also a renaissance of critique of religions. A series of critical materialist thinkers refers to religion in their works, and in particular to Christianity. Philosophers Alain Badiou and Slavoj Zizek, for example, treat the Christian heritage as something to be defended.

In this context the question of the correct interpretation of »Paulian universalism« plays a central role. The main issue is the Gospel’s promise that it is addressed »to everyone«: »There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.« (Galatians 3, verse 28) At the same time Paul opposes the notion that access to the truth« is reserved to elites. »For consider your call, brethren, (…) not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth; but God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise, God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong, God chose what is low and despised in the world.« (I Corinthians 1, verse 26)

Paul thus radically inverted the value system prevalent in Antiquity. From the Greek or Roman point of view, inequality between human beings – the oppression of the weak by the strong – was not merely an inalterable natural fact, but was precisely the condition that enabled human (male) development. For classical philosophy, truth was accessible only to the few. In contrast, Paul combined the theology of the cross with an inversion of the idea of the elite. It is not the noble that are called, but the low, the weak. That means it is no surprise that some on the right refer to the »Bolshevism of Christianity«: Bolshevik because the message is addressed to
everyone and hence a new conception of truth is established, which continues, undergoing some metamorphoses along the way, right up to Marx: the path to truth is difficult but in the end everyone may participate through the practice of history.

In their defence of Christianty, Zizek and Badiou wish to sharpen the intellectual »arms« of political activism with a new concept of universal truth, as the »arms« of difference have grown blunt. For them, the Christian heritage with its universalist claims constitutes an essential foundation for criticism of neoliberal capitalism’s structures of oppression and exploitation. At the same time, they believe that they can distil a »strong subject« from their reading of Paul. The »Paulian subject«, driven by the definite will to (supernatural) hope, breaks with the world as it is. In the New Testament Jesus thus calls upon his disciples to leave behind them everything they own and everything familiar: »If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.« (Luke 14, verse 26). What apparently fascinates Zizek and Badiou is the occurrence of a radical decision, whereby the »subject of hope« is not guided by what is considered socially acceptable or feasible, but instead subjugates himself to the event of truth to the point of self-abnegation. In the figure of the militant fighter, struggling uncompromisingly for the principle of equality between people, they attempt to pick up on the Leninist concept of the avant-garde. However, to counterbalance the political-eschatological decision, which seeks to break open the »steel housing« of capitalism by an act of will, I would like to cite another passage from »Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right«: »For revolutions require a passive element, a material basis. Theory is fulfilled in a people only insofar as it is the fulfilment of the needs of that people. (…).It is not enough for thought to strive for realization, reality must itself strive towards thought.«

 

Translated by Helen Ferguson

 

---