Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T02:14:31.130Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Theological and Political Liberalisms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 April 2015

Paul Rasor
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Several highly critical theological responses to political liberalism have appeared in recent years. John Milbank, continuing his onslaught on all things modern, complains that political liberalism's “empty heart” suffers from a “totalitarian drift” toward “an increasingly joyless and puritanical world.” For Oliver O'Donovan, liberalism is “a false posture of transcendence” and modernity is “conceived as Antichrist, a parodie and corrupt development of Christian social order.” Robert Song warns against “the partial and limited character” of liberalism's freedoms and proclaims that “a responsible theology will learn to articulate its ‘No’” to liberal political society. Other commentators offer critiques of particular aspects of political liberalism, often suggesting revisions based on their own theological perspectives. These critical voices join others such as Stanley Hauerwas, one of liberalism's most outspoken theological critics for more than a quarter century, and they continue a line of critique that extends back through Reinhold Niebuhr and Karl Barth.

Not all the theological voices are critical. Christophe Insole, for example, finds that “politically liberal principles are compatible with a full-blooded and theologically main-stream Christian commitment.” Several Roman Catholic theologians have commented on the increasing mutuality between liberal democracy and Roman Catholic political and social teachings. Paul Sigmund notes that “the relation between Catholicism and liberal democracy has now become a positive and, one would hope, a mutually reinforcing one, even if there are a number of continuing tensions between them.” And Daniel Dombrowski offers a general defense of Rawlsian liberalism against claims that it is hostile to religion.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Law and Religion , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , 2008 , pp. 433 - 462
Copyright
Copyright © Center for the Study of Law and Religion at Emory University 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Milbank, John, Being Reconciled: Ontology and Pardon 25 (Routledge 2003)Google Scholar. See my critique of Milbank's “radical orthodoxy,” in Rasor, Paul, Faith Without Certainty: Liberal Theology in the 21st Century 78–80 (Skinner House 2005)Google Scholar.

2. O'Donovan, Oliver, The Desire of the Nations: Rediscovering the Roots of Political Theology 274 (Cambridge U. Press 1996)Google Scholar.

3. Id. at 275.

4. Song, Robert, Christianity and Liberal Society 213 (Oxford U. Press 1997)Google Scholar.

5. Id. at 215. Song argues that the church must also offer “a careful and tentative ‘Yes,’” id. at 230, by finding ways to engage in public life rather than withdraw from it.

6. See e.g. Johnson, Kristen Deede, Theology, Political Theory, and Pluralism: Beyond Tolerance and Difference 52–66 (Cambridge U. Press 2007)Google Scholar (challenging political liberalism's contribution to toleration); Thiemann, Ronald F., Religion in Public Life: A Dilemma for Democracy 95–144 (Georgetown U. Press 1996)Google Scholar (challenging political liberalism's account of public reason).

7. See e.g. Hauerwas, Stanley, A Community of Character: Toward a Constructive Christian Social Ethic 72–86 (U. Notre Dame Press 1981)Google Scholar; Hauerwas, Stanley, A Better Hope: Resources for a Church Confronting Capitalism, Democracy, and Postmodernity (Brazos 2000)Google Scholar. For an excellent critical analysis, see Stout, Jeffrey, Democracy and Tradition 140–161 (Princeton U. Press 2004)Google Scholar.

8. See e.g. Niebuhr, Reinhold, An Interpretation of Christian Ethics 153–177 (Harper & Bros. 1935)Google Scholar. Song treats Niebuhr's critique of liberalism in Christianity and Liberal Society, supra n. 4, at 49-84.

9. See Barth, Karl, Protestant Thought in the Nineteenth Century: Its Background and History (Eerdmans 2002)Google Scholar (originally published 1947).

10. Insole, Christopher J., The Politics of Human Frailty: A Theological Defense of Political Liberalism 49 (U. Notre Dame Press 2004)Google Scholar. See also Beckley, Harlan, A Christian Affirmation of Rawls' Idea of Justice as Fairness, 13J. Religious Ethics 210 (1985)Google Scholar, and 14 J. Religious Ethics 229(1986).

11. Sigmund, Paul E., Catholicism and Liberal Democracy in Catholicism and Liberalism: Contributions to American Public Philosophy 217, 238 (Douglass, R. Bruce & Hollenbach, David eds., Cambridge U. Press 2002)Google Scholar.

12. Dombrowski, Daniel A., Rawls and Religion: The Case for Political Liberalism (SUNY Press 2001)Google Scholar.

13. I borrow this term from Jeffrey Stout. See Stout, supra n. 7, at 24-27.

14. The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary vol. 1, 1612 (Oxford U. Press 1971)Google Scholar.

15. Much of this paragraph has been adapted from Rasor, supra n. 1, at 2-3.

16. Oxford English Dictionary, supra n. 14.

17. Id.

18. Id.

19. See Domen, Gary, The Making of Liberal Theology: Crisis, Irony, and Postmodemity 1950-2005, especially at 1-8 and 513-539 (Westminster John Knox 2006)Google Scholar.

20. Hodgson, Peter C., Liberal Theology: A Radical Vision 13 (Fortress 2007)Google Scholar.

21. This is by no means a comprehensive treatment; I omit discussion of liberal approaches to doctrinal matters such as understandings of God, Jesus, salvation, or the like. For a more comprehensive introduction to liberal theology's basic characteristics, see Rasor, supra n. 1, at 156. See also Hodgson, supra n. 20, at 13-22.

22. Hutchison, William R., The Modernist Impulse in American Protestantism 2 (Oxford U. Press 1976)Google Scholar. See Rasor, supra n. 1, at 11-15.

23. See Dorrien, supra n. 19, at 2.

24. McFague, Sallie, The Body of God: An Ecological Theology 76 (Fortress 1993)Google Scholar.

25. See e.g. Niebuhr, H. Richard, Christ and Culture 83–115 (Harper & Bros. 1951)Google Scholar. The criticisms of contemporary countercultural theologies such as radical orthodoxy and postliberal theology are basically along the same lines. See Rasor, supra n. 1, at 78-83.

26. Hodgson, supra n. 20, at 53-54.

27. See Andrian, Charles F., Political Justice and Religious Values 142 (Routledge 2008)Google Scholar.

28. Adams, James Luther, Why Liberal?, 1 J. Liberal Religion 3, 6 (Autumn 1939)Google Scholar.

29. See e.g. NY Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).

30. I develop these ideas in Public Prophetic Religion and the Separation of Church and State, unpublished paper delivered to the American Academy of Religion, Section on Religion, Politics, and the State, Nov. 2007 (on file with author).

31. See McKanan, Dan, Identifying the Image of God: Radical Christians and Nonviolent Power in the Antebellum United States 46–65 (Oxford U. Press 2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

32. See e.g. Hodgson, supra n. 20, at 14.

33. See e.g. Unitarian Universalist Association Bylaws and Rules, Art. II, § C-2.1, Principles, which speak simply of “[t]he inherent worth and dignity of every person.” (available at http://www.uua.org/aboutus/bylaws/index.shtml).

34. Adams, James Luther, A Faith for Free Men (1946)Google Scholar, reprinted as A Faith for the Free, in The Essential James Luther Adams 21, 28 (Beach, George Kimmich ed., House, Skinner 1998)Google Scholar (emphasis in original).

35. For extended treatment of these themes, see Kaufman, Gordon D., In Face of Mystery: A Constructive Theology 91-111, 141–175 (Harv. U. Press 1993)Google Scholar.

36. Hodgson, supra n. 20, at 4.

37. See Rasor, supra n. 1, at 22-23.

38. See United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966), Art. 18, §§ 1-2 (available at http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/a_ccpr.htm); United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief (1981), Art. 1, §§ 1-2 (available at http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/d_intole.htm).

39. Hodgson, supra n. 20, at 14.

40. Id. at 20.

41. Kaufman, supra n. 35, at 42.

42. See Rasor, supra n. 1, at 141-163.

43. Adams, James Luther, The Liberal Christian Looks at Himself, (1956)Google Scholar reprinted as The Liberal Christian Holds Up the Mirror, in Adams, James Luther, An Examined Faith: Social Context and Religious Commitment 308-322, 311–312 (Beach, George K. ed., Beacon 1991)Google Scholar.

44. Hodgson, supra n. 20, at 20.

45. Id. at 19 (emphasis in original).

46. Id. at 69. Hodgson develops this liberal “freedom project” at length in id. at 67-98.

47. For more complete treatment of this development, see Rasor, supra n. 1, at 89-102.

48. Kaufman, supra n. 35, at 157.

49. McFague, Sallie, Super, Natural Christians: How We Should Love Nature 99 (Fortress 1997)Google Scholar.

50. See Rasor, supra n. 1, at 97-108.

51. Rawls, John, Political Liberalism: Expanded Edition 14 (Colum. U. Press 2005)Google Scholar.

52. Benhabib, Seyla, Situating the Self: Gender, Community and Postmodernism in Contemporary Ethics 71 (Routledge 1992)Google Scholar.

53. Galston, William A., Liberal Pluralism: The Implications of Value Pluralism for Political Theory and Practice 60 (Cambridge U. Press 2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

54. See The Commission on Appraisal of the Unitarian Universalist Association, Engaging Our Theological Diversity (Unitarian Universalist Assn. 2005) (available at http://www.uua.org/documents/coa/engagingourtheodiversity.pdf); Hamm, Thomas D., The Quakers in America 156–183 (Colum. U. Press 2003)Google Scholar.

55. See Rasor, supra n. 1, at 22-24.

56. See e.g. Kaufman, supra n. 35, at 45-59.

57. Adams, supra n. 28, at 5.

58. See Rasor, supra n. 1, at 13-15.

59. Rawls, supra n. 51, at 8.

60. Audi, Robert, Liberal Democracy and the Place of Religion in Politics, in Religion in the Public Square: The Place of Religious Convictions in Political Debate 14 (Audi, Robert & Wolterstorff, Nicholas eds., Rowman & Littlefield 1997)Google Scholar.

61. Kaufman, supra n. 35, at 31. See also Kaufman, Gordon D., An Essay on Theological Method (3d ed., Scholars Press 1995)Google Scholar.

62. See Fiorenza, Francis Schüssler, Foundational Theology: Jesus and the Church 285–311 (Crossroad 1984)Google Scholar; and Fiorenza, Francis Schüssler, The Crisis of Hermeneutics and Christian Theology, in Theology at the End of Modernity: Essays in Honor of Gordon D. Kaufman 117–140 (Davaney, Sheila Greeve ed., Trinity 1991)Google Scholar.

63. Rawls, supra n. 51, at 97.

64. Id. at xlvi.

65. Id. at 10.

66. Galston, supra n. 53, at 5.

67. See Id. at 8-9.

68. I offer a preliminary exploration of this issue in Reclaiming Prophetic Liberalism: Liberal Religion in the Public Square, public lecture delivered at Harvard Divinity School, Cambridge, Mass., Feb. 4, 2008 (on file with author).

69. Greenawalt, Kent, Private Consciences and Public Reasons 129 (Oxford U. Press 1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

70. Perry, Michael J., Under God? Religious Faith and Liberal Democracy 36 (Cambridge U. Press 2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar (emphasis in original).

71. Rawls, supra n. 51, at 290.

72. Id. at 293.

73. Galston, supra n. 53, at 60.

74. Id. at 3.

75. Id. at 84.

76. Id. at 29.

77. See id. at 81-92.

78. Rawls, supra n. 51, at 292.

79. Id. at 291.

80. See id. at 4-8, 308-310.

81. Id. at 291.

82. Id. at 159.

83. Perry, supra n. 70, at 35.

84. Greenawalt, supra n. 69, at 129.

85. Rawls, supra n. 51, at 308; and see id. at 293.

86. See id. at 365.

87. Id. at 291. Rawls has offered various formulation of this principle, but these variations may be ignored for my purposes.

88. Id. at 291.

89. See id. at 81.

90. Dworkin, Ronald, Sovereign Virtue: The Theory and Practice of Equality 237 (Harv. U. Press 2000)Google Scholar.

91. Id. at 11 (emphasis added). See Dworkin, Ronald, A Matter of Principle 190 (Harv. U. Press 1985)Google Scholar.

92. Dworkin describes this in terms of “equal concern and respect.” Dworkin, A Matter of Principle, supra n. 91, at 190. The term “equal concern” apparently intends no change in meaning.

93. Dworkin, Sovereign Virtue, supra n. 90, at 1.

94. Galston specifically locates Dworkin, Sovereign Virtue, in his comprehensive/monist category. Galston, supra n. 53, at 8.

95. Waldron, Jeremy, God, Locke, and Equality: Christian Foundations of Locke's Political Thought 2 (Cambridge U. Press 2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

96. See id. at 6.

97. Id. at 13.

98. Id.

99. Id. at 21.

100. In Fiorenza, Francis Schüssler, The Influence of Feminist Theory on My Theological Work, 7, J. Feminist Stud. Religion 95, at 104-105 (Spring 1991)Google Scholar, Fiorenza refers to Dworkin to illustrate a theological point.

101. Perry, supra n. 70, at 36 (emphasis in original).

102. Sandel, Michael, Public Philosophy: Essays on Morality in Politics 161–164 (Harv. U. Press 2005)Google Scholar.

103. Id. at 162.

104. Sandel, Michael, Democracy's Discontent: America in Search of a Public Philosophy 12 (Harv. U. Press 1996)Google Scholar.

105. Sandel, Public Philosophy, supra n. 102, at 172.

106. Id. at 164.

107. Walzer, Michael, Politics and Passion: Toward a More Egalitarian Liberalism 3 (Yale U. Press 2004)Google Scholar.

108. Id. at 13.

109. Greenawalt, Kent, Religious Convictions and Political Choice 22 (Oxford U. Press 1988)Google Scholar.

110. Walzer, supra n. 107, at 162.

111. Sandel, Michael, Liberalism and the Limits of Justice (Cambridge U. Press 1982)Google Scholar, is in many ways an extended conversation and debate with Rawls.

112. Rawls, supra n. 51, at 19.

113. See id.

114. Id. at 81.

115. Id. at 301.

116. See id. at 15-22.

117. Insole, supra n. 10, at 50.

118. The most important exception is Jürgen Habermas, who has developed a complex theory of the self as fully social or intersubjective in nature, while also accounting for the emergence of a fully individualized self. However, even minimally adequate treatment of Habermas's theory would vastly overextend this discussion. See Rasor, Paul, Intersubjective Communication and the Self in Wieman and Habermas, 21 Am. J. Theology & Phil. 269 (2000)Google Scholar. See also Benhabib, supra n. 52.

119. Walzer, supra n. 107, at 20.

120. Rawls, supra n. 51, at xviii.

121. Galston, supra n. 53, at 23.

122. Rawls, supra n. 51, at 304.

123. Many liberals who object to religious arguments in the public square, for example, often simply assume that religious convictions are necessarily grounded in supernatural or mystical sources that lie beyond the reach of reason, or in texts or institutions whose authority is limited to particular groups. Examples include Audi, Robert, Religious Commitment and Secular Reason 34-35, 116–117 (Cambridge U. Press 2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sweetman, Brendan, Why Politics Needs Religion: The Place of Religious Arguments in the Public Square 86–93 (Inter Varsity Press 2006)Google Scholar; and Ackerman, Bruce, Social Justice in the Liberal State 281 (Yale U. Press 1980)Google Scholar. But this is an unfortunately narrow view of religion, and it is simply not true of religious liberalism.

124. Rawls, supra n. 51, at 13.

125. On the dilemmas of liberal religious identity, see Rasor, Paul, Postmodernity, Globalization, and the Challenge of Identity in Liberal Theology, in The Home We Share: Globalization, Post-Modernism and Unitarian/Universalist Theology (Reed, Clifford M. & McAllister, Jill K. eds., Intl. Council Unitarians & Universalists 2007)Google Scholar. On the role of religious identity in liberal democracy, see Gutmann, Amy, Identity in Democracy 151–191 (Princeton U. Press 2003)Google Scholar.

126. Rawls, supra n. 51, at 64.

127. Galston, supra n. 53, at 124.

128. Id. at 126.

129. Rawls, supra n. 51, at 64, n. 19.

130. Galston, supra n. 53, at 3.

131. Id. at 23.

132. Rawls, John, A Theory of Justice 220 (Harv. U. Press 1971)Google Scholar.

133. Sandel, supra n. 104, at 10.

134. Id.

135. Id.

136. Rawls, supra n. 51, at 173.

137. Id. at 210.

138. The Principles and Purposes of the Unitarian Universalist Association, for example, provide that the member congregations “covenant to affirm and promote … a free and responsible search for truth and meaning,” among other things. UUA Bylaws, Art. II, § C-2.1, supra n. 33.

139. See e.g. Kaufman, supra n. 35, at 411, 491-492 n. 5.

140. I have often thought it ironic that the philosopher (Rawls) who most insists that a political conception of justice should not be comprehensive has produced philosophical works far more comprehensive and systematic than the work of most contemporary theologians.

141. Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, The Social Contract: Or Principles of Political Right 5 (Tozer, H.J. trans., Wordsworth 1998)Google Scholar. Walzer makes this point in Politics and Passion, supra n. 107, at 2.

142. Insole, supra n. 10, at vii.

143. Id.

144. Id. at 123.

145. Id. at 87.

146. Id. at 123.

147. Id. at 49.

148. See Welch, Sharon D., A Feminist Ethic of Risk 13–21 (Fortress 1990)Google Scholar.

149. Insole, supra n. 10, at 175.

150. Walzer, supra n. 107, at x.