Saint Benedict and Alasdair MacIntyre, the shadowy figures behind vast right wing conspiracy according to modernist professor

We will be a long time waiting for the triumphant Reign of Christ the King if the Church took up Professor Palaver's philosophy.  The word "Palaver" originates from Portuguese and entered the English language through trade with West Africa. It initially meant "a long talk" or "a conference" and later developed into a term for "fruitless talk" or "nonsense," according to the Oxford Learner's Dictionaries.

Interview

Christianity as a marker of identification is appearing more frequently in political discussions again, with particularly restrictive groups gaining support. These are all crisis phenomena, says theologian Wolfgang Palaver. He advocates for a dynamic role for the churches – and a new, old mysticism.

Most recently, Innsbruck Professor Emeritus of Christian Social Theory Wolfgang Palaver became known through the podcast "The Peter Thiel Story," as he is in regular contact with the German-US billionaire, who supports illiberal thinkers and initiatives. But what do right-wing Christian groups with political ambitions mean for the world? In this interview, Palaver looks at Christianity in politics, markers of identification, and the role of the churches in this.

Question: Mr. Palaver, in US politics, there is often talk of a Christian nation; in Europe, too, Matteo Salvini, among others, attracted attention by waving a rosary. Is there a revival of Christianity in politics?

Palaver: If you understand Christianity from its biblical and spiritual perspective, then I don't see any revival. It's still difficult to convey this message. However, if you understand Christianity as a marker that creates identity, then it's more likely. I believe there is a great need for a closer identity and identification. This doesn't necessarily have to have much to do with the substance of the matter. Anyone who waves religious symbols around today or appears very strongly in the spirit of the Christian West is unlikely to be found at church on Sundays. That shows how complex the connections are.

Question: Where does this fixation on Christianity come from?

Palaver: There are different approaches. In light of the Muslim minority and multicultural developments, some want to demonstrate which group they belong to. They are irritated because they see a woman wearing a headscarf on the street and want to counteract this with something. But there are also people – you find them more in the US, but here too – who are somewhat irritated because they don't really feel at home religiously or feel pressured by a society where religion is rather marginalized. They then want to live their faith in a particularly holistic way, for example through homeschooling. Many of these people have a lot of children. This gives you the feeling that they want to live the whole package of a more biblically oriented religion, which is less possible in secular society. I have sympathy for that to a certain extent. What irritates me more is when Catholic groups of this kind then have a claim to power politics. This coherent, integral understanding of faith is a good thing in itself. It is also legitimate to promote it through missionary work. But why force everyone to live this way? I have the impression that the lack of conviction in one's own way of life is compensated for by forcing it on others.

Question: Are there any thought leaders in this field?

Palaver: I'm thinking, for example, of Rod Dreher and his book "The Benedict Option," in which, following Alasdair MacIntyre's contrast between Nietzschean-style nihilism and the possibility of retreating with other believers in Benedictine communities, he chooses the second option. To justify this, he also draws on some theologians and thinkers who have influenced me. But there is a crucial difference: Do I try to live Christianity out of hatred or defense against a secular society—with the thesis that this world is wrong and must be overcome? Or do I advocate a stronger emphasis on Christianity from a personal source, from a community. This community radiates outward, but doesn't necessarily have to claim power. Do you become a convinced Christian out of negative rejection or positive acceptance? Dreher and his followers live out of a radical rejection of the secular world—hence their claim to power. This, of course, contradicts the Benedictine principle of small communities that do not concern themselves with the state and have no ambitions for power.

Question: A world that was becoming increasingly secular and confusing also existed in the 19th century – at that time, new orders were founded that cared for the elderly and the sick. There is no trace of this today; they prefer to agitate against abortion. What has changed?

Palaver: When it comes to sexual morality, these groups are all very strict; they even try to prevent their children from premarital sex. A few decades ago, such behavior would have been much more common—the world became more liberal in the 1970s. However, the Church has long been fixated on sexual ethics, even if this completely ignores people's reality. But sexuality is a central aspect of many people's identities. Here, too, it's about rejecting the world: a sexually liberal world is contrasted with a restrictive sexual morality.

Question: In addition to this strict sexual morality, politically ambitious groups in particular are often also nationalistically oriented. The Catholic Church sees itself as a universal church. How does that fit together?

Palaver: Christian nationalism is a contradiction in terms. From a Christian perspective, Christianity should actually always take precedence over citizenship in terms of identity. Of course, people need a political home—including smaller entities like a state, if only for social security systems. Because in neoliberal globalism, the ordinary people are often the losers. So we need the solidarity of a country. But this nationalism must never become absolute or a closed society.

Question: Nevertheless, many Christian right-wing groups in the US, for example, oppose immigration because Christian culture must be protected. This then confuses with libertarian ideas like the dismantling of social systems. Where do these people get their Christian justification?

Palaver: If you look back to the beginnings of human civilization, religion was always a tribal religion of a tightly closed tribe, where there was no individuality. The dominant religions in the world today, in contrast, claim universality. The French philosopher Henri Bergson speaks here of static and dynamic religion: Static religion is identical with a closed society, dynamic with an open one. Static religion remains a tribal religion, which continues in nationalism. Anthropologically, people need the security of a small group. Individuality then emerges through individuals who break the mold – Bergson cites the Jewish prophets as an example. This mysticism – understood as an interpersonal, active mysticism with a claim to social justice – is the initial spark of dynamic religion. From a Christian perspective, Jesus Christ also stands in this tradition. These individuals trigger an echo in other people, they move and transform them. Individuality and a dynamic religion spread. But static religion has not disappeared. In times of crisis, there is a regular influx of such people, including in times of pandemics and economic crises. Research shows that this also has to do with the reality of one's own death. The sooner people are reminded of this, for example in crisis situations, the more fears they develop and the more restrictive policies they support. This conflict always exists – it is up to leading church figures to continually rekindle the flame of dynamic religion. Pope Benedict XV attempted this in a magnificent way during the First World War, and Pope Francis has done so in our time. Pope Leo XIV will likely continue it – thank God. In this situation, we need a church that is dynamic and committed to liberal values.

Question: The large, established churches are losing influence and members in many countries. What should they do now?

Palaver: We need vibrant churches; without them, faith has no chance. But they must adapt to the present day, as Thomas Halik also writes. Many people in the church long for the church from a time when everything was ecclesiastically organized. But that doesn't get us anywhere. The church must go out to places it hasn't been before—to people who have nothing to do with the old institutional system. To do this, the church must also show itself spiritually and offer places where people can open themselves to a mystical impulse that sustains them. They must be vibrant, experiment, and explore what it means to go out into the world. So far, the church has remained far too much in its own juices. It requires a rootedness in Judeo-Christian mysticism and, from this strength, a departure from the beaten path.

Question: Yet there are those who want fewer rights for everyone, who oppose a free society. What can be done?

Palaver: Democracy should not be based on relativism, we need some form of truth. At the same time, we need to be aware that it can look slightly different depending on the perspective. Nevertheless, truth is not a subject of democratic negotiation. But we can all still learn something from each other up to a certain point. So you have to listen to everyone and talk to everyone. This also reveals some problems that really do exist. But that doesn't mean you have to work with everyone. The AfD probably raises issues that we all need to listen to. But that doesn't mean that we should adopt their political position or bring them to power.

Source