"There is a remarkable... irony in the theological habits of the Christian right, which is entirely lost on the secular and religious media, but which I wish to note here: Every time we hear the voice of the Christian nationalist, or the claims, implicit or direct, that God is on our side, or such boasts as... 'America is a Christian nation,' we are in fact hearing the voice (unwittingly, perhaps, but unmistakably) of the Protestant liberal tradition...
The story of Protestant liberalism begins with this momentous adaptation: Metaphysical reality, the doctrines and beliefs of the church, are meaningful only as lessons that help organize human experience... As for being descriptions of the triune God, the one who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, who on the third day raised Jesus Christ from the dead, and all the rest -- the doctrines and beliefs of the church are empty of objective meaning.
Thus, the liberal Protestant tradition, inasmuch as it claims that the knowledge of God must be based on some mode or dimension of human experience, leads to a theological dead end. Indeed, it leads to the conclusion that God is but an extension of human experience, a projection of human need and longing... The liberal theologians tried so hard to accommodate the gospel to the modern world that they ended up surrendering the faith 'to the patterns, forces, and movements of human history and civilization...' (Karl Barth quote)
When the conservative religious elites speak of the Christian nation, Christian principles, Christian values, or Christian prosperity in quasi-theological language, they are standing firmly in the tradition of Protestant liberalism. In this way, the conservative Christian elites have become the new Protestant liberals: Christ is the projection and guarantor of our values, ambitions, and power..."
11 comments:
We talked about this topic in that most recent class on Barth that I took. It's ironic indeed. They are Protestant liberals in reality. LOL
The fatal flaw in Charles Marsh's argument is ambiguity, he uses multiple meanings of the word liberal.
Classical Liberalism, as it existed when Protestantism was formed, had an emphasis on individual liberty. For example, individuals could read and interpret Scripture for themselves without going to a priest.
On the other hand, Modern Liberalism favors a strong meddlesome government. It differs from Classical Liberalism by diminishing individual liberty and increasing the power of the state. As a riposte, I could use Mr. Marsh's own ambiguity to prove how (Classically) illiberal Modern Liberalism is. But that would be showing off.
So Mr. Marsh is correct when he mentions Protestantism has a Classical Liberal tradition. But this is different than Modern Liberalism. Conservative Christians are not Modern Liberals.
Actually, Kevin, you're mistaken, because Marsh is referring to religious "liberalism." He is only referring to one sort of liberalism, not two. He is not talking about either Classical or Modern liberalism in a political sense.
It is actually the word "conservative" which is being used inconsistently, by the so-called "religious right." They call themselves conservative (by which they mean, I take it, both politically and religiously), but in reality their very collusion of political and religious is what provides the ironic twist.
So, if by your statement "Conservative Christians are not Modern Liberals" you mean politically, then you are correct. But, then, you are also talking about something else, something Marsh may speak to, but is not directly addressing here.
Oh, and P.S. to Kevin - I would be interested to hear you defend your apparent thesis that Protestantism was a species of Classical Liberalism... I assume that's what you're saying?
You've suggested the term liberalism can be both religious and political. What about its other definitions? Economic (laissez-faire) liberalism? The liberal arts? If one calls oneself a liberal and isn't inclusive of all definitions of that word, is that also ironic?
I suppose it could be, depending on the context, but that's a different topic - one unrelated to this post. The term "liberal Protestantism" was coined specifically to refer to Christian belief that became a type of civil religion, wherein faith became dependent upon human systems for its viability. It was this liberal religion to which theologians like Barth, Bonhoeffer, and others (and now Marsh) respond.
Now, I don't necessarily think all aspects of "liberal Protestantism" were awful, but their subsuming of the Christian faith into a prior epistemological or cultural system is hugely problematic.
But, the irony here stems from the fact that many on the Christian "right" claim they are conservative Christians (i.e. they would reject liberal Protestant claims such as the mythological nature of the Bible), but when it comes to their willingness to merge Christianity and their national identity, they are actually following in the "liberal" footsteps of the very ones whom they would vehemently reject as heretics.
Word definitions are the point, you have a double standard. If liberals can depend on context, why can't conservatives?
I'm not sure what you're talking about... everyone depends on context. That's not the point. The terms have been defined, the context should be clear - it's a theological context. In that context, many "conservative Christians" contradict themselves. If you want to discuss how "liberals" or "conservatives" contradict themselves in another context, go for it... but that's not what we're talking about here. My concern here is theological consistency.
If your concern is only theological, why do I see words like "Religious right", "Christian right", "Christian nationalist", and "conservative Christian elite"? That looks like a political context to me. My concern here is logical consistency.
Kevin, I appreciate your desire for logical consistency, but I think you're missing the forest for the trees. Here's why:
I never said that there was no political element to the terms "Christian right" or "conservative Christian" - only that the political element is not the primary concern for this discussion. However, that does not mean it is irrelevant to the discussion.
Maybe I haven't explained myself very well (that's not uncommon! :-D). Let me try again...
I think we can both agree that, among many conservative Christians, there has been a tendency - especially in the last few decades since the "Moral Majority" and other groups gained momentum - to combine a particular conservative religious faith with a particular conservative political stance. This seems like an obvious statement to me.
Inasmuch as this is true, these Christians have merged two (or more?) contexts in which the term "conservative" is used into one over-arching term, and have assumed that to be conservative theologically is to be conservative politically as well.
What Marsh points out is that there is a grave theological flaw in assuming that one's faith and one's politics can be merged in this way. Christianity is never dependent upon any politic, nor should it acquiesce to any politic. That's a separate debate, but I think it's obvious where I stand on that issue. Maybe that's why my own terminology seems charged to you?
This theological flaw manifests itself in the ironic fact that the very decision to combine the two contexts for the term "conservative" into one umbrella term result in a systematic theological approach which relies upon the same principles that were necessary for the growth of "liberal Protestantism" - a branch of historical Christianity that any conservative would rightly disavow.
So, Marsh's point is not primarily political, but theological: If, in the decision to merge the political and the religious, "conservative Christians" have ended up following the same theological path that the dreaded "liberal Protestants" trod, they are in deep trouble theologically.
Marsh does not support liberal Protestantism. He just doesn't support conservative Christianity either, because both rely upon flawed theology.
I'm not sure if this helps, but hopefully it makes sense.
FWIW, I have no doubt there are "liberal Christians" who fall into these same traps, but it seems at present the most obvious examples are found within the "conservative Christian" arena, simply because it is more prevalent.
Post a Comment