Secular western liberalism is a species of political thought that consciously rejects religious ideas from public consideration. It argues that for peaceful human cohabitation a truce needs to be achieved between conflicting visions of human flourishing.
Postmodern critiques of secular western liberalism expose its weaknesses, especially in the areas of epistemology and anthropology. Lyotard and Foucault have uncovered the hidden metaphysical, even theological, commitments of liberalism, suggesting that its appeal to universal or rational concepts is less compelling than at first glance. However, the postmoderns were themselves guilty of some problematic arguments...
Secular western liberalism trespasses frequently beyond the boundaries of the role of ‘contributing to a social order less unjust’. At least in part this is because of the deliberate step liberalism has taken away from divine authority that it might assert its own (covert) theology instead. It would be preferable for liberalism to name its theological commitments; or at least to assert openly its ‘thick’ moral vision and give up the pretence of moral minimalism. Public discussion of preferred theologies and of the telos of human life need not exclude in this way some of the strongest commitments people have (namely, their religious ones); neither would religious people be asked to frame their public discourse according to the theological and/or moral commitments of liberalism. In turn, the theological and moral assertions of secular western liberalism could be properly evaluated, if at least they were made explicit.
What must be heard is a call to the end of the open hostility of contemporary liberal order to Christianity. We can see in liberalism a prodigal child of Christianity: a millennium of Christendom meant that politics in the west has been moulded out of theological clay. We would not assert, for example, that Freedom and Equality are bad ideas in themselves; rather, that without an understanding of them as they were given birth by Christian theology they lack coherence and may become harmful. Christians can support a vision of liberal order that permits people freely to hear and respond to the gospel of God, which itself calls its hearers to deep concern for justice and peace in the present age while at the same time promising a final divine intervention to ‘shatter the spear’. However, the dominant form of liberal order on the contemporary scene is remorselessly secular...
4 comments:
the philosopher John Gray argues something along these lines... (try Heresies: Against progress and other illusions (2004)
Yeah, he stole it from me.
;-)
P Knight
Could it be thought of this way: they are doing about as well as they can with an impossible problem? If the post moderns you quoted are pointing out that it is impossible to be neutral about something like the existence of god - well yeah, but how do they go at articulating a comprehensible alternative? (I know attacking them for comprehensibility or conclusiveness on just about any level is like shootin' fish in a barrel). You're kind of adding accusations of open hostility ...as well as insidious undermining and plagiarism (covert and overt at the same time?) (mind you, I thought it was a beautiful sentence about "prodigal / moulded out of theological clay"! I've struggled on and off with pinning that idea down to words for years, so eloquent!)
But aren't secular liberals among the more easy going godless ideologues history has seen? And doesn't the bible tell us to expect, short of a christian theocracy, that the world will be run by at least some, if not a majority of people with no love of christ? I always thought social order was envisioned in the bible as a sort of imperfect blessing from God, like almost everything in the garden after the fall: a shadow of how it was intended, but necessary to survive our span of years. We are to give it its due and basically run with it, imperfect though it is (not that there's anything wrong with clarifying the shortcomings and seeking to influence, as you are).
But its not really practical to call for an end to open hostility, is it? It doesn't seem possible to have someone who is in charge & doesn't believe in God not merely be tolerant, but to say "I will put my concern for justice and peace in the context of the day your God, who I do not believe in, intervenes to shatter the spear". Its just not going to happen. Also, the vision of liberal order that we already support seems to permit people freely to hear and respond to the gospel of God, as far as I can tell: what is your experience to the contrary? I mean, there might be a bit of sniggering, looking down the nose, a superior attitude perhaps, but it scarcely amounts to a denial of permission? If anything it gives christians an easy big target to play off, a bit the way Pauline Hansen used to (though with a message of rebirth and hope, rather than fear and a siege mentality...)
P knight
I mean, christians are for rebirth and hope, PH for fear and siege, not the other way around...
Post a Comment