Divine Sovereignty, Human Freedom, and the Christological Vocation to Power: Political Resources from Irenaeus

Irenaeus of Lyon is a promising conversation partner for Christian theologians seeking a politics of justice, human flourishing, and the promotion of the common good, in contrast to fascistic models of domination, unchecked power, and the demonization of difference.  Christian-valenced authoritarianism, for example, relies on theological assumptions about God, human society, and the nature and character of political power that align more closely with Irenaeus’ depiction of the political figure of the Antichrist than the complex model of Christian politics set forth in Adversus haereses (AH) and the Epideixis (Epid). Central to this model are particular assertions of divine sovereignty, the human vocation to rule, and the paradigmatic kingship of Christ. A fruitful engagement with Irenaeus as a resource for contemporary constructive political theologies requires a close and nuanced reading of his perspective on these three key theo-political concepts. 

Irenaeus holds together divine sovereignty (e.g., AH 5.24) and human freedom (e.g., AH 4.37-39) in the political realm not by toning down either of these dynamics, but precisely by leaning into them more fully. For Irenaeus, the assertion of divine sovereignty over the political sphere is quite literal. When he names God as sovereign, the sovereignty itself is not metaphorical, even when that sovereignty is described by the use of creaturely illustrations. God is, for Irenaeus, an actual political actor involved in human history. Similarly, when he writes of the kingship of Christ (e.g., Epid 36, 48-49, 95), Irenaeus means that he is literally King— an actual political figure in the divine οἰκονομία, not merely metaphorically like a king, or analogously related to creation as a king is related to subjects and territory.

Yet, this divine political involvement takes place in the realm of a human freedom that is not, for Irenaeus, a concession but a key feature of his anthropology.  This results in a distinction and practical tension between the non-coercive power of God, which the church is called to emulate, and the threat of coercive power exercised by the state, which is also under the authority of God. Irenaeus holds together both the non-coercive character of God’s actions and the (at least potentially) coercive character of the actions of agents through whom God works, e.g., magistrates (AH 5.24.1-2) and “armies of God” which serve as instruments of divine punishment (AH 4.36.6). While he does not make explicit how he reconciles this apparent tension, he seems to conceive of a mode of divine action which we might call “intimate intermediacy,” by which God is able to work through the actions of human beings, in a way that maintains God’s intimacy of involvement and human freedom. Such an “intimately intermediate” mode of action permits God to work in and through creatures without either infringing on their freedom or distancing Godself from creation. 

Not only are humans called in freedom to engage with God’s sovereign political agency, but they themselves are invested with divinely-ordained power and authority, and called to two distinct but interrelated vocations: the pursuit of becoming more fully human, and the exercise of power and authority over other creatures and, in qualified contexts, over other human beings. Being human, for Irenaeus, is theologically relevant not as a fixed species or taxonomical category, but as a status to be attained through spiritual progress in each individual life. In following a spiritual curriculum of discipleship, one goes from attaining the fullness of one’s humanity to “afterwards” participating in divine glory (AH 4.39.2). 

The connection between the vocation to become human and the vocation to political authority emerges most clearly when human creatures reject the former and distort the latter. When humans fail to pursue their vocation to become more fully human, and turn away from the humanizing vision of God, they erode their capacity to recognize the common humanity in other people and treat them with respect and dignity. This results in interpersonal violence and social chaos, which Irenaeus describes tellingly in terms of people acting like various non-human animals (e.g., vipers in AH 4.41.3, horny horses and irrational cattle in AH 5.8.3, and feral beasts and cannibalistic fish in AH 5.24.2).

For Irenaeus, this bestialization is less an indication of the moral inferiority of non-human creation than a sign that human creatures, in abdicating the vocation to become human (and, thereby, to attain to participation in God), have lost their proper place in the order of creation. According to Irenaeus, humans are called by God to rule over non-human creatures, so their emulation of beasts implies not only a failure to pursue the vocation to humanization but also a related departure from their divinely-ordained place in the cosmic power structure.

The entire system of divine sovereignty and human political vocation is held together implicitly in the Kingship of Christ. Particularly in AH 3 and Epid, it serves as the ground and shape of divinely-ordained human political authority, illuminating the nature and character of exemplary political rule. Diametrically and demonically opposed to this is the paradigm of Antichrist, a political figure who epitomizes the distortion of the Christological political vocation (e.g., AH 5.28.2), ultimately destined to recapitulate the entire history of injustice and political evil (AH 5.25.1, 5.25.5, 5.28.2, 5.29.2), in order to be overthrown and dismantled by Christ (AH 5.26.1, 5.30.4), the “King of Kings” long-prophesied and lately-fulfilled (AH 3.23.7).

Clarifying the contrast between Irenaeus’ Christological and Antichristological paradigms of political power, against the theological backdrop of divine sovereignty and human freedom, reveals an ancient Christian narrative ultimately inimical to injustice, unchecked authority, and abuses of power. While he does not provide neat answers for contemporary Christian political concerns, Irenaeus does present a theo-centric, Christologically-rich model of politics that fosters socio-political peace and stability, social coherence and diversity, and genuine care for the marginalized and vulnerable, without undermining individual human freedom and agency. The heart of this theo-political vision remains relevant today.