Church and Politics

Editorial Note
Links to other media and further information regarding this topic can be found in the German version of this article.

1. Historical Milestones

In early Christian tradition, there have been at least three different positions on political power. The Jesus logion “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matt 22:21 NRSV) reveals the indifference of religion toward political rule, but acknowledges its reality. Religious criticism of political rule, on the other hand, is conveyed in Luke’s account of the birth of Jesus, which begins with an order from the Roman emperor in Rome and ends with the appearance of the true Prince of Peace in the Jewish province (Luke 2:1–14). The apostle Paul , on the other hand, uses religious arguments to affirm the political order established by God and calls on Christians to obey, pay taxes and customs duties, and show reverence to their representatives (Rom 13:1–7). In fact, these three positions have prevailed throughout the history of Christianity. Three additional positions can be added when the Christian faith takes institutional form in the church. It trains ministers, professionalizes the exercise of ministry, and thus becomes a political actor itself, because ministry always creates relationships of superiority and subordination that raise questions of power, both internally and externally, which must be resolved politically.

A first historically significant milestone is the so-called Constantinian turn (in 324), through which the Christian faith became the state religion (salus publica) in the Roman Empire, and the Church was integrated into imperial power in order to consolidate the latter. This arrangement has had a profound historical impact, which, under changed political and denominational circumstances, extend down to the present day. For example, in England, the king is the head of the Anglican Church. In Greece, the Orthodox Church is the state church. The same applies to the Lutheran Church in the Kingdom of Denmark and to Roman Catholicism in the Principality of Monaco.

The development went in the reverse direction in the Latin Middle Ages, when the papacy insisted on its right to appoint bishops in relation to the political powers and enforced this right. Theologically, scholastic theology justifies the political “authority to set guidelines”¹Leonhardt, Rochus, Religion und Politik im Christentum. Vergangenheit und Gegenwart eines spannungsreichen Verhältnisses, Leipzig 2017, 89, translation by Jacob N. Cerone. German original: “Richtlinienkompetenz.” of the church represented by the pope in relation to political power because eternal salvation has a more comprehensive meaning than peace on earth. In realpolitik, this superiority is evident in the fact that popes crowned German kings as Roman emperors during the Middle Ages. The conflict between the pope and the emperor reached its peak with the penitential procession of Henry IV  to Canossa in 1077.

The mainstream of the Reformation movement takes a middle path. It takes up the separation of secular and spiritual power that was already evident in the Middle Ages and deepens it theologically. The Reformers recognize the authority established by God in the sense of Rom 13:1–7, call Christians to obedience and service to it, but limit its power in the spiritual sphere, which is based on the authority of the ecclesiastical ministry established by Christ. Faith should be independent of political authorities. The word preached by the church aims to convince and reach the hearts of believers without coercion. The Reformation doctrine of the “differentiation”²Scheliha, Arnulf von, Protestantische Ethik des Politischen, Tübingen 2013, 20, translation by Jacob N. Cerone. German original: “Differenzierung.” between God’s two modes of rule was groundbreaking for the German states, although it was also shaped by the sovereign church regime, which integrated the churches into the (early) absolutist state. The peasant uprisings during the Reformation revived the early Christian motif of criticizing authority. Reformed Christianity in particular developed a religiously based doctrine of resistance against unjust rulers, drawing on ancient and medieval traditions. In the nineteenth century, efforts to separate the Lutheran Churches from the state became visible and were slowly implemented. This was finally achieved with the revolution of 1918 and the Weimar Constitution (Weimarer Reichsverfassung) of 1919. The continued validity of Articles 136–139 and 141 of the Weimar Constitution concerning religious and ideological communities through Article 140 of the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany (Grundgesetzes der Bundesrepublik Deutschland) of 1949 created a religious legal situation in 1919 that still applies today.

The situation was somewhat different for the Roman Catholic Church, because the pope, as head of the (former) Papal States and (present-day) Vatican City, has always been a subject of international law and active in global politics. Through the appointment of bishops, he exerts political influence on the dioceses in the nation states. As a result, the relationship between religion and politics here is enriched by the international dimension and latently conflict-intensive, as manifested in the culture war (Kulturkampf) in Prussia in the nineteenth century.

In the regional Lutheran churches (Landeskirchen) in Germany, the so-called church struggle (Kirchenkampf) at the beginning of the Nazi era was a struggle over the influence of the Nazi state on church order. The Barmen Declaration of 1934 summarized the theological outcome of the debates at that time, emphasizing the separation of church and state and the independence of the churches in relation to the state. The “kingship of Christ” takes “possession” of the entire life of Christians in the church, state, and society (Thesis 2). The church “calls to mind […] the responsibility both of rulers and of the ruled” (Thesis 5), thereby establishing its “prophetic watchman function” (Dietrich Bonhoeffer ) in the political sphere.

2. Current Positions

Protestant Churches in Germany fundamentally clarified their political relationship to the state under the Basic Law in the so-called Democracy Memorandum (Demokratie-Denkschrift) of 1985. Parliamentary democracy is understood “as an offer and a task,” as the subtitle states.³EKD, Evangelische Kirche und freiheitliche Demokratie. Der Staat des Grundgesetzes als Angebot und Aufgabe, eine Denkschrift der Evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland, hrsg. vom Kirchenamt im Auftrag des Rates der Evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland, Gütersloh ⁴1990, translation by Jacob N. Cerone. German original: “als Angebot und Aufgabe.” The basis for this is the common view of humanity that faith and democratic politics presuppose.⁴Cf. EKD, Evangelische Kirche, 14. The concept of human dignity plays a key role in establishing the proximity of the Christian faith to democracy. It is important to note the convergence between biblical anthropology, namely the image of God as interpreted by justification theology, and the understanding of human beings presupposed in the Basic Law, which is developed in Article 1 of the Basic Law and the catalog of fundamental rights introduced by it. Respect for human dignity leads to the recognition of freedom and equality, from which the “law of political and social justice” is derived. The task of the state is seen as ensuring order in the “not yet redeemed,” “fallible,” or, in Lutheran terms, sinful world. Since the state itself is subject to the same fallibility, however, not only are state powers divided and the exercise of political power limited by fundamental rights, but human dignity and its development are also considered a critical benchmark by which political reason and political action must be guided.

The concept of responsibility is central to the justification of political participation. God’s demand for participation in the fulfillment of state tasks is developed as a concrete expression of Reformation professional ethics. This aims at the social integration of Christians and assigns them the place where the commandment of love for one’s neighbor should be realized.⁵Cf. EKD, Evangelische Kirche, 22.

Political responsibility begins with exercising the right to vote and extends to assuming political mandates and offices, not only in administration and government, but also in the parliamentary opposition. The processes of political decision-making, the rule of law and the welfare state, the role of political parties, the political public sphere, including political journalism, and social pluralism are viewed positively.

The Democracy Memorandum (Demokratie-Denkschrift) leaves largely open the question of the role of the churches in relation to the state. Representatives of the program of Public Theology understand the political role of the church, in line with the Barmen Declaration (Barmer Theologische Erklärung), as a “public conscience” (Wolfgang Huber ), with the result that the Protestant churches should intervene in political discourse and issue statements on both fundamental and current political issues. This idea is enshrined in the Public Theologyprogram.⁶Cf. Höhne, Florian/Oorschot, Frederike van (Eds.), Grundtexte Öffentliche Theologie, Leipzig 2015. In contrast, representatives of the program of Public Protestantism (Öffentlichen Protestantismus), among others, dispute the possibility of deriving clear political options from the gospel.⁷Cf. Albrecht, Christian/Anselm, Reiner, Öffentlicher Protestantismus. Zur aktuellen Debatte um gesellschaftliche Präsenz und politische Aufgaben des Christentums, Zürich 2017. From an ethical and political point of view, the churches could never represent all Christians. Therefore, political options and political engagement can only ever be the responsibility of individual Protestants. The task of the churches is primarily to draw attention to marginalized groups in political debates, to articulate common background convictions, and to facilitate compromise.

This has also been emphasized in ecumenical documents in recent years. The joint statement issued in 2006 by the Roman Catholic German Bishops’ Conference (Deutschen Bischofskonferenz) and the Council of the Evangelical Church in Germany (Evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland) entitled “Demokratie braucht Tugenden” (Democracy Needs Virtues) emphasizes the political stance of all Christians, which is oriented toward the common good, and urges them to put aside their particular interests in the political process.⁸Cf. Deutsche Bischofskonferenz/EKD, Demokratie braucht Tugenden. Gemeinsames Wort des Rates der Evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland und der Deutschen Bischofskonferenz zur Zukunft unseres demokratischen Gemeinwesens (Gemeinsame Texte 19), Bonn/Hannover 2006 (https://www.ekd.de/demokratie-braucht-tugenden-55653.htm), accessed on 20.04.2027. In 2019, under the title “Vertrauen in die Demokratie stärken” (Strengthening Trust in Democracy), a response was made to the rise of right-wing populism and a call was made to defend democracy. “Democracy needs citizens who feel responsible for the success of this demanding system.”⁹Deutsche Bischofskonferenz/EKD, Vertrauen in die Demokratie stärken. Ein Gemeinsames Wort der Deutschen Bischofskonferenz und des Rates der Evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland (Gemeinsame Texte 26), Bonn/Hannover 2019, 25 (https://www.ekd.de/vertrauen-in-die-demokratie-staerken-55655.htm), accessed on 20.04.2026, translation by Jacob N. Cerone. German original: “Die Demokratie braucht Bürgerinnen und Bürger, die sich für das Gelingen dieser anspruchsvollen Ordnung verantwortlich fühlen.” Together with Christians in Germany, the churches want to stand up for “the need for ‘democratic morality,’” which is realized “in the lived, good practices of democracy.”¹⁰Deutsche Bischofskonferenz/EKD, Vertrauen, 26, translation by Jacob N. Cerone. German original: “das Erfordernis einer ‘demokratischen Sittlichkeit’”; “[die] sich in den gelebten ‘guten Sitten der Demokratie’ [verwirklicht].”

This includes fairness, respect for political opponents, the courage to engage in controversy, a sense of community, and a focus on the common good. And this morality also means not presenting one’s own perspective as immutable, but rather recognizing the fundamental plurality of viewpoints.¹¹Deutsche Bischofskonferenz/EKD, Vertrauen, 26, translation by Jacob N. Cerone. German original: “Dazu gehören Fairness, Respekt gegenüber dem politischen Gegner, Mut zur Kontroverse, Gemeinsinn und Gemeinwohlorientierung. Und zu dieser Sittlichkeit gehört auch, die eigene Perspektive nicht als unverrückbar darzustellen, sondern die grundsätzliche Pluralität der Sichtweisen anzuerkennen.”

The churches therefore call on Christians to become politically active, which specifically means maintaining a meta-level perspective and exploring opportunities for compromise.

3. The Perspective of Liberal Democracy on Religion

In the opposite direction, the relationship between liberal democracies and religions is regularly discussed in connection with the so-called Böckenförde dilemma. In a treatise first published in 1967 entitled “Die Entstehung des Staates als Vorgang der Säkularisation” (The Emergence of the State as a Process of Secularization), legal philosopher Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde  (1920–2019) traced the emancipation of the political order from Christian precepts, which has been evident since the Middle Ages. His conclusions, which are oriented toward the present, are of particular significance. On the other hand, he draws attention to a problem associated with freedom by stating: “The liberal secularized state thrives on conditions that it cannot guarantee itself.”¹²Böckenförde, Ernst-Wolfgang, Die Entstehung des Staates als Vorgang der Säkularisation, in: Böckenförde, Ernst-Wolfgang, Recht, Staat, Freiheit. Studien zur Rechtsphilosophie, Staatstheorie und Verfassungsgeschichte, Frankfurt a. M. ²2006, 112f., translation by Jacob N. Cerone. German original: “Der freiheitliche säkularisierte Staat lebt von Voraussetzungen, die er selbst nicht garantieren kann.”

Böckenförde  clearly identified the “freedom paradox” of the modern political order, which consists in the fact that liberal democracy depends on the commitment and participation of free citizens and is therefore endangered when citizens do not make use of this freedom on the basis of their freedom. “What does this state rely on in times of crisis?”¹³Böckenförde, Entstehung, 113, translation by Jacob N. Cerone. German original: “Worauf stützt sich dieser Staat am Tag der Krise?” In any case, it cannot rely on itself, because it would contradict the liberal character of the state to compel citizens to exercise their freedom. Böckenförde trusts that the forces from which the modern liberal state developed and against which it enforced civil liberties will come to the state’s aid in times of crisis. It is the “religious faith of its citizens”¹⁴Böckenförde, Entstehung, 113, translation by Jacob N. Cerone. German original: “religiöse Glaube seiner Bürger.” that provides the state’s free life with “impetus […] and binding forces […],”¹⁵Böckenförde, Entstehung, 113, translation by Jacob N. Cerone. German original: “Antriebe […] und Bindungskräfte […].” enabling it to overcome its structural crisis.

The problem identified by Böckenförde  has been taken up many times.¹⁶An overview can be found in Große Kracht, Hermann-Josef, Fünfzig Jahre Böckenförde-Theorem. Eine bundesrepublikanische Bekenntnisformel im Streit der Interpretationen, in: Große Kracht, Hermann-Josef/Große Kracht, Klaus (Eds.), Religion – Recht – Republik. Studien zu Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde, Paderborn 2014, 155–183. The ideas of Jürgen Habermas , who wishes to maintain the “inspiring power” of world religions open “for society as a whole,”¹⁷Habermas, Jürgen, Religion in der Öffentlichkeit. Kognitive Voraussetzungen für den “öffentlichen Vernunftgebrauch” religiöser und säkularer Bürger, in: Habermas, Jürgen, Zwischen Naturalismus und Religion. Philosophische Aufsätze, Frankfurt a. M. 2005, 119–154, 149, translation by Jacob N. Cerone. German original: “inspirierende Kraft” and “für die ganze Gesellschaft.” also converge with the substance of Böckendörder’s ideas. For Habermas, religious insights are an important social and moral resource that can be used to counter the phenomena of derailed modernity because they can supplement the “weakly motivating moral reason on which […] the constitutional integration of largely secularized societies must ultimately rely.”¹⁸Habermas, Jürgen, Politik und Religion, in: Graf, Friedrich Wilhelm/Meier, Heinrich (Eds.), Politik und Religion. Zur Diagnose der Gegenwart, München 2013, 287–300, 299, translation by Jacob N. Cerone. German original: “nur schwach motivierenden Vernunftmoral, auf die sich […] die verfassungsrechtliche Integration weitgehend säkularisierter Gesellschaften in letzter Instanz stützen muß.” For it is above all religious certainties that bring new transcendent forces to normative consciousness, which has been worn down by the defeatism of reason. Religious arguments and goals should therefore be allowed to be expressed in public discourse. Not only because this takes religious freedom into account, but also because only in this way can the inspiration and meaning-giving power of religion, which society needs, become effective.¹⁹Cf. Scheliha, Arnulf von, Religion und Sachpolitik. Zur gegenwärtigen Bedeutung von Martin Luthers Unterscheidung vom geistlichem und weltlichem Regiment Gottes, in: Scheliha, Arnulf von, Religionspolitik. Beiträge zur politischen Ethik und zur politischen Dimension des religiösen Pluralismus, Tübingen 2018, 63–77. Within the institutional framework, Habermas demands that religious language be translated into secular terms so that religious resources of meaning become generally accessible.

The Bonn-based ethicist Hartmut Kreß  has drawn attention to the danger of overestimating the importance of religions for the stabilization of liberal democracies, as Böckenförde  does.²⁰Cf. Kreß, Hartmut, Ethik der Rechtsordnung. Staat, Grundrechte und Religionen im Licht der Rechtsethik, Stuttgart 2012, 24–32. In fact, Böckenförde had presented his ideas with high expectations of homogeneity. He always speaks of “faith” in the singular, overlooking the plurality of religious culture that was already apparent at the time. Kreß rightly points out that the major political debates of the present day show that religious communities are unable to adopt a common ethical position or to represent the positions within their communities through their statements: on euthanasia, assisted  suicide, organ donation, and questions of sexual, marital, and family ethics, the spectrum of opinions cuts across religious affiliations. In this respect, Kreß aptly states that the thesis according to which “the” faith is the resource of freedom that will help the state out of its crisis is too sweeping.

In his recent book Fragile Souveränität (Fragile Sovereignty), the Catholic theologian Georg Essen  pointed out that Böckenförde’s supposed connection only applies if one thinks strictly along the lines of the concept of freedom.²¹Cf. Essen, Georg, Fragile Souveränität. Eine Politische Theologie der Freiheit (Untersuchungen über Recht und Religion 5), Tübingen 2024. Since “insight into the self-restraint of the modern constitutional state in the interest of freedom”²²Essen, Souveränität, 170, translation by Jacob N. Cerone. German original: “Einsicht in die Selbstbeschränkung des modernen Verfassungsstaates im Interesse der Freiheit.” remains, there is a need to mediate “religious resources of meaning”²³Essen, Souveränität, 171, translation by Jacob N. Cerone. German original: “religiöse[r] Sinnressourcen.” The state is therefore dependent on the freedom of its citizens, who are themselves “aware of the external nature of their raison d’être.”²⁴Essen, Souveränität, 198, translation by Jacob N. Cerone. German original: “der Externalität ihres Sinngrundes bewusst.” This is the case with enlightened religions. For Essen, religions that have become liberal are those social actors that “can publicly contribute their meanings to the success of coexistence.”²⁵Essen, Souveränität, 198, translation by Jacob N. Cerone. German original: “ihre Sinngehalte für das Gelingen des Zusammenlebens öffentlich einbringen können.” If this condition is met, democracy is dependent on religions, just as, conversely, only those religions that have adopted democratic structures are likely to have acquired liberal competence.

With this intensification of the Böckenförde dilemma on the mutual fertilization of freedom, which was probably inherent in Böckenförde’s  thinking, it becomes clear that religions are not the only sources of freedom. Kreß  refers to the field of political education, through which the state can develop the resource of “responsible freedom” on its own initiative and, among other things, under the umbrella of compulsory schooling. Moreover, many government measures in recent years, such as gender equality quotas, inclusion, and anti-Semitism prevention, have been used as means of establishing responsible freedom on the basis of equality. In this respect, the state – not least in education and social policy – is jointly responsible for establishing freedom.

The efforts of the government to protect freedom, which have always been supported by the churches, raise a problem that Munich theologian Reiner Anselm  has identified.

The result is the welfare state, which reserves the right to interfere extensively in individuals’ lifestyles and which is legitimized by its interest in promoting comprehensive equality of opportunity and providing public services. As little reprehensible as this may be in principle, it leads to a new alienation between the state and its citizens and, in extreme cases, to the state not only providing for the welfare of its citizens, but also presuming to be able to decide what constitutes a good life for individuals.²⁶Anselm, Reiner, Politische Ethik, in: Huber, Wolfgang et al. (Eds.), Handbuch der evangelischen Ethik, München 2015, 195–264, 234, translation by Jacob N. Cerone. German original: “Die Folge ist der Fürsorgestaat, der sich umfangreiche Übergriffe in den Bereich der individuellen Lebensführung vorbehält und der durch das Interesse legitimiert ist, sich für eine umfassende Chancengleichheit und Daseinsvorsorge einzusetzen. Sowenig verwerflich dies im Grundsatz ist, so sehr führt es zu einer neuen Entfremdung zwischen Staat und Bürgern, im äußersten Fall auch dazu, dass der Staat nicht nur für das Wohl der Bürger sorgt, sondern sich auch anmaßt, über das gute Leben der Einzelnen entscheiden zu können.”

This alienation is likely to fuel the current disillusionment with politics, which is also articulated in “right-wing Christianity.” Its criticism of the deep state sees individual freedoms as being impaired by legal norms and financial incentives.²⁷Cf. Claussen, Johann Hinrich et al., Christentum von rechts. Theologische Studien und Kritik, Tübingen 2021. A similar criticism also concerns the European and international independence of politics advocated by the churches. Right-wing Christianity, on the other hand, advocates a concept of an ethnically homogenous nation based on creation theology, justifying this with reference to the patriarchal traditions of Christianity. This corresponds to an authoritarian understanding of politics that subordinates human rights and international law to the interests of the people.

4. Significance in Everyday Life

In the current crisis facing liberal democracies, the relationship between “church and politics” is highly relevant. Democracies based on the equal freedom of all people cannot enforce the commitment they require and are therefore dependent on committed, active participants. Christian churches inspire and motivate their members to participate in democracy. The frustration with the paradoxes of freedom, with inevitable problems of representation, and with the sometimes lengthy democratic procedures is leading to a rise in right-wing populist and extreme right-wing political parties, which is also reflected in equivalent Christian attitudes.²⁸Cf. Scheliha, Arnulf von, Rechtspopulismus als Herausforderung für die protestantische Ethik des Politischen, in: Scheliha, Arnulf von, Religionspolitik. Beiträge zur politischen Ethik und zur politischen Dimension des religiösen Pluralismus, Tübingen 2018, 341–364. For right-wing political Christianity, the Christian churches are part of the liberal political establishment that must be fought. In this respect, it is not only political issues that are controversial among Christians, but also questions of political systems, which brings the multiplicity of the historical options mentioned at the beginning back into focus. This shows that in every generation and in every legal system, the question of the relationship between Christian faith and politics must be addressed anew.