The Fama Dei of Politicology

In academic or scholastic theological circles, we speak of the “three legs of the theological stool”: historical theology, biblical theology, and systematic theology. I am suggesting another category, which may or may not fit under or along side one of the three legs as a category or sub-category. I must also note that I have not fully researched and studied the distinctions I just mentioned, so if there is a name which exists to describe the following, then I am not aware of it and I ask your forgiveness because I may be repeating the work of previous generations.

First things first, what in the world does “fama Dei” mean? Fama is a Latin word which means public opinion, talk, report, rumor or tradition. According to the definition given by the Online English to Latin dictionary sponsored by the University of Notre Dame, the Latin word fama means, “fama -ae f. [talk , report, rumor, tradition]; 'fama est', [there is a rumor]; [public opinion; standing in public opinion, repute], good or bad.” Dei of course is a derivative of the Latin word for God, so the term fama Dei literally means talk, rumor or public opinion about God. I will use the term to more specifically describe what may have been previously studied as “popular theology”, and I may use the two terms interchangeably; so the term in this context can be taken to mean, the widely accepted and public opinion about theological issues.

Another and more specific way to put it is this—the popular, “Christian” opinion of a particular doctrine (including the biblical interpretation from which the doctrine is derived and its application in practical life). What I mean in the previous definition by “Christian” is—all those who call themselves Christians; and are those who have likely been counted in a “Barna Poll”. An example of an American (and perhaps wider) fama Dei of end times would be that, because ethnic Israel is a political state God is preparing the world for its end. Another simple example would be the current, popular theology of alcohol which is, that Christians don’t drink it. In other words, one could often say that fama Dei, or popular theology refers to what the World thinks “Christians” think about topic “x”; so it is different than orthodoxy—which largely reflects the consensus of what actual Christians actually believe about a particular doctrine in a particular generation—in that it is instead, a consensus of ideas about a doctrine held by believers and unbelievers that may or may not be true, and may or may not be held by actual believers.

Perhaps a more complex example is the fama Dei of political “involvement”; the research and study of political positions and ones implementation of the resultant views into life and practice—and for this complicated concept I may use the term, politicology. So, politicology would refer to political science, and its application; the study of: government, political affairs, and affairs of state, governmental policy, political beliefs, opinions, principles and views and also the necessary, subsequent adaptation of those issues into ones psyche which, consciously or not, one uses to filter information and opine about every topic encountered.

While not being healthy in the body of Christ, it is quite popular these days, at least on American soil, for one to falsely equate the political movement called Conservativism (or even Republicanism) with Christianity, denying the possibility of a Christian Democrat or a Christian who does not fit easily into the mold of popular Conservativism—many would say that the two are quite contrary, thus they must be contradictory. While it is true that some doctrines widely held by the Democratic Party so alienate them from Christian theology that it makes the promoters of such dogmas not Christians, or at best very immature Christians. Of course I am speaking, in one case, of the policy of “choice”; the woman’s right to kill the baby with which she is pregnant, this teaching is contrary to Christianity all together and it must be said of one who holds that abortion is not a sin is thus not a clear thinker; they either are not thinking clearly about Christ, therefore they are not Christians in the first place, or they are not thinking clearly about abortion, therefore they hold to a contradiction in their view of reality. That aside, the fama Dei of politicology (specifically the American type) is: pro war, pro family, and pro death penalty, pro free firearms distribution, pro Israel/ anti Palestine, and anti abortion, etc. It must be said that some of these planks are right and are Christian and some of them must be held by the one who aims to please Christ, but my point is that the fama Dei of politicology is that Christians are by definition, well-to-do American Republicans.

It is not uncommon today to see a Baptist, or a “fundamentalist” Christian pastor, or in some cases even a Presbyterian man in the political spotlight today. The popular theology of politicology has escaped the bounds of simple interest in the lives of many Christians today. One would find it difficult to turn on the TV or radio and discover a Christian program that wasn’t focused in some way on the political application of our inheritance with Christ. In some small way I place the blame on our dispensational brothers, who have so emphasized the earthly aspects of the inheritance of those in Christ, or have confused the promises of the Mosaic covenant with the promises of the New covenant, that the Kingdom of God is the Kingdom of man on God’s behalf, that their focus has unfortunately been relieved of Christ’s Kingdom by the kingdom of the perishing; the kingdom of this world.

The right and true ordinances given to us by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself were Baptism and the Lord’s Table, both physical pictures of the spiritual reality of our citizenship in the everlasting Kingdom of heaven. While many ecclesiastical leaders today would (not formally of course) have us to ultimately become, citizens of the Kingdom of American, or democratic freedom, worshiping the idol of capitalism through the sacraments of:

1. Voting (like baptism it is an identification with the “right” party) and
2. Boycotts, with which one practices communion with the greater good of Conservativism; it is an expression of being together with a group; fellowship in the rejection of the same things; “...we are all together against the same worldly evils...”, and so on.

It is easy to see that this view of Baptist and communion are not born out of the covenantal understanding of the ministries ordained by God but their understanding arises from a false interpretation of symbol, one which sees baptism as little more than an outward and visible expression of a prayer which was recited some time before, and one which sees communion as a simple rejection of perceived “sins”, but not real sins, just the rejection of conventional taboos—whatever they may be; a rejection of the common, subjective moralistic code instead of adherence to the objective Law of God. In the absence of true Law, some ruling force must come into power to frighten the people, and we must set aside a time to commemorate our agreement upon these surrogate rules by our consumption of the tactile symbols of Christ’s work, we somehow mysteriously acknowledge that we are capable of living up to them, but we haven’t, and that is why we should repent. (There is heavy sarcasm here if you didn’t notice).

In the end, in order to counteract the fama Dei of politicology, I think we need a new fundamentalist. Not like the first, like Machen, who countered the liberals who were his contemporaries, but one like Jesus, who countered the pharisaical hypocrites. What we need is a “neo-fundamentalist movement” which will counter the “religious right” and the so called, “conservative Christian” with the objective Law of God, which will also counter the moralistic, conservative, republicans in Christian clothing with the gospel of Jesus Christ, and may the Lord either soften their hearts with salvation or so harden them so that we may easily tell the difference. It is the meek who inherit the Earth, not those who possess political savoir-faire.