I show a structural limitation in current approaches to religious literacy in International Relations, one that becomes visible in hybrid conflicts. Increased attention to religion has started to correct earlier secular blind spots, yet religion is still predominantly treated as a sociological factor, cultural identity, or background motivation — insufficient where religious language itself functions as a normative instrument structuring political judgment, moral legitimacy, and the range of conceivable policy responses. Focusing on war rhetoric in Russia's war against Ukraine, I show how theological concepts such as 'katechon', 'Russkii mir', 'sacrifice', and 'peace' operate as ideologemes: condensed semantic units detached from their historical and theological contexts and redeployed as sources of moral authority. Religious language in this form actively reshapes responsibility, legitimises violence, and narrows deliberation by appealing to transcendence, destiny, or moral necessity. Approached only descriptively, its capacity to authorise violence and foreclose political judgment remains analytically invisible. Descriptive religious literacy must thus be supplemented by theological literacy: the capacity to test how claims to transcendence reorganise meaning, authority, and responsibility in politics, including the shifts of religious language from expressing belief to authorising violence and redefining peace as stability, endurance, or strategic suspension of violence. By bringing this capacity into dialogue with existing approaches to foreign information manipulation and interference, I show why current policies, oriented toward factual correction, actor mapping, and incident response, remain vulnerable when confronted with semantically weaponised religious language. Theological literacy clarifies how meaning becomes a strategic terrain and why peace, responsibility, and legitimacy cannot be addressed without theology through which they are contested.