Will the New Critics of Liberal Democracy Turn Against Religious Liberty?

Last updated on: May 24, 2018 at 12:08 pm By Gene Veith

A number of conservative thinkers, in trying to address the political and cultural problems of our time, are blaming liberal democracy itself. They are maintaining that the combination of individualism, personal freedom, and free market capitalism, as cultivated by liberal democracy, undermine community, religion, and (ironically) the foundations of liberal democracy itself. But what these critics would put in the place of liberal democracy is not so clear. Might they take a turn towards authoritarianism?

John Ehrett worries that these conservatives are moving away from the traditional tenets of American conservatism–constitutional government, limited government, free enterprise economics, and civil liberty–to embrace, instead, a more authoritarian model. He specifically looks at the issue of religious liberty.

If the purpose of the state is to promote the common good, as these theorists say, how can that happen when there are different visions of the common good? That is, when there are different religious beliefs all being tolerated together?

John predicts the rise of what he calls “Neo-Integralism.” Integralism is the Roman Catholic view that rejects any kind of separation between the church and the state. According to this view, the church is “integral” to the state, and the state is “integral” to the church. The political order must contribute to the spiritual ends as defined by the church. Thus we have the medieval notion of the temporal authority of the Pope over earthly governments. But we can also see a different type of Integralism in the Protestant state churches of post-Reformation Europe.

John expects that conservative theorists and Christian thinkers will put forward a version of Integralism, advocating limits to religious liberty and the other liberties that go along with it.

From John Ehrett, The Coming Neo-Integralism, in Between Two Kingdoms:

Speculation is always a dangerous game, but here is my controversial prediction: in the next 2-3 years, a not-insignificant number of conservative political theorists will gravitate toward support for an express synthesis of church and state, with all its ensuing consequences. I will call this ideology neo-integralism (most of its proponents wouldn’t use the prefix, but insofar as neo-integralism tries to resurrect a prior, premodern relationship between church and state, the additional descriptor makes sense). Neo-integralism, unlike what most Americans conceive of as “conservatism,” will willingly grasp the nettle of authoritarian politics, favoring state control of markets and close regulation of personal behavior. Most controversially, neo-integralism will ultimately dictate that political/spiritual leaders take an axe to the perceived taproot of liberalism: religious freedom. . . .

Why might this shift occur? Freedom of religion is, at bottom, the freedom to come to diverse conclusions about the ultimate destiny of reality—and, in a regime sanctioning the free exercise of religion, the freedom to act meaningfully on those conclusions. I would go so far as to suggest that a robust view of religious liberty necessarily restricts the power of any political leader to articulate a “thick” vision of the common good—a vision toward which all members of the community may be morally compelled to labor. A regime allowing space for divergent views of the eschaton (that is, the ultimate telos or purpose of humanity) to flourish is a regime that inherently circumscribes a political leader’s power to immanentize any eschaton at all: to what shared philosophical foundation can such a leader appeal?

To summarize all this: the new wave of conservative critiques of liberalism is largely predicated on liberalism’s perceived failure to preserve the “common good.” Divergent views of the Ultimate Good (that is, God), which are a necessary consequence of freedom of conscience, will necessarily thwart political leaders’ ability to organize citizens around a temporal “common good.” As a result, those who seek to elevate the concept of a “common good” over the subtler achievements of liberal democracy must ultimately stake out positions opposed to religious liberty itself.

As a Lutheran, I myself am comfortable with a degree of tension between the political and the transcendent—and I don’t find it especially difficult to make a theological case for freedom of religion. . . .

[Keep reading. . .]

First, I have a question for those of you with a fuller knowledge of Lutheran theology than I do, humble layman and convert that I am: What was the theological justification for having a state church in light of the Lutheran doctrine of the Two Kingdoms? I know the historical reasons, but surely the Age of Lutheran Orthodoxy and subsequent theologians also had a theological rationale. It seems to me that the doctrine of the Two Kingdoms makes any kind of Integralism impossible. The Reformation definitely attacked the temporal authority of the pope and the church in general. I can’t see how a version that allowed the secular ruler to govern the church is much of an improvement.

Second, any attempt to integrate the church and the state, or make the church rule the state, or to figure out how a theocracy could work, or even to pose secular alternatives to our current liberal democracy can surely be nothing more than a theoretical construct. Does anyone really believe that in our highly secularized society the church can seize political power? Or become seamlessly integrated with a society that consists mostly of nonbelievers? Or make the general public obey God’s laws, when even believers cannot fully obey God’s laws, which is why Christianity is all about the Gospel? Can any church body that exercises temporal rule even be authentically Christian, given that it would inevitably be secularized at the expense of the message of the Cross?

Wouldn’t it be a better strategy for Christians to exercise their vocation as citizens–which does indeed entail political responsibilities–to develop more modest goals? Not to rule the country or solve all of society’s problems or usher in a new utopian Golden Age, but to adopt a far less ambitious Realpolitik and to pursue a few limited, though morally and spiritually-informed objectives?

Fight for the unborn and other life issues. Defend religious liberty. Protect the family. Isn’t this enough to keep Christian political activists busy?

Christian citizens should also be encouraged to promote their individual interests using the political process: Farmers, small business owners, workers in all vocations should agitate for their economic interests. Those concerned about the environment, the poor, peace, the national debt, educational reform, or whatever, should be encouraged to pursue those concerns. This will mean that Christians will not always agree with each other politically, but why should they?

In the meantime, knowing that this world is not their home, Christians would live out their lives according to their callings–loving and serving their neighbors, growing in their faith as they work through their trials, and doing the best they can–whereupon they will die and be received into God’s eternal Kingdom. There sin will have no dominion, and they will live forever in a reign of perfect justice and the ultimate community that they had yearned for on earth.

Illustration: The medieval hierarchy [with the Church and the Pope at the top; the King and earthly government next; and the common people below] by entworfen im Auftrag der Kirche – Europa und die Welt um 1500 (ISBN 3-464-64823-0), Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=7977851

Premium Content

How the Commandments Define Civil Society (and What This Means for Abortion)

Last updated on: May 14, 2018 at 8:39 am By Gene Veith

0 Comments

The always-interesting Peter Leithart, a fellow Patheos blogger, discusses Systematic Theology, II: The Works of God (2001) by the late Lutheran theologian Robert Jenson. one of a series of posts on the Ten Commandments. Leithart doesn’t always agree with him, nor would we more conservative Lutherans, Jenson being of the ELCA variety.

However, I was struck by a quotation from Jenson in which he explains how the Commandments not only summarize the Natural Law, but define the foundations of any civil society. And then, contrary to the official teaching of the ELCA, Jenson applies the principle to show the evil of abortion!

Quoted and discussed by Peter Leithart, Abortion and the Horde:

“The commandments state minimum conditions: no society can subsist in which the generations turn against each other; in which vendetta has not been replaced by public organs of judgment and punishment; in which the forms by which sexuality is socialized, whatever these may be, are flouted; in which property, however defined, is not defended; in which false testimony is allowed to pervert judgment; or in which greed is an accepted motive of action. Indeed, even the commandments of the first table have a kind of negative and so general application: no society can long subsist that violates its own religion” (Systematic Theology II, p. 87)

And then Jenson makes a penetrating pro-life application:

“A society in which an unborn child can legally be killed on the sole decision of the pregnant person cannot be “a people” even by the least rigorous of Augustine’s definitions; it can only be a horde.” (Systematic Theology II, pp. 87-88).

Why is that? Because “Thou shalt not kill” marks “the decisive break between precivil and civilized society: the replacement of vendetta by courts and their officers. The decision that someone rightly must die is no longer to be made by interested parties and is instead to be made by maximally disinterested communal organs.” Thus, “if unborn children are members of the human community, then allowing abortions to be performed on decision of the most interested party is a relapse to pure barbarism” (Systematic Theology II, p. 88).

The invocation of the “woman’s right to choose” whether her child lives or is aborted is thus equivalent to the primitive vendetta cultures, which give the wronged individual the “right to revenge.” In advanced, civil societies, a lawbreaker is not punished by the victim’s own initiative but through an objective, unbiased–that is, “disinterested”–process of legal authorities applying the law. Unborn children do not have recourse to that process. Rather, they are subject to their mother’s subjective and biased decision, regardless of the child’s objective personhood.

Thus, abortion is a “relapse to pure barbarism.” A society that permits abortion no longer has a civil society. It is only a “horde.”

I would add that our violation of the other commandments is additional testimony to our “relapse to pure barbarism.” Our generations do turn against each other. We have replaced respect for “public organs of judgment and punishment” with the tribal vendettas of social media. We flout the forms by which sexuality is socialized. Property is often not defended. False testimony does pervert judgment. Greed is an accepted motive of action. Our society violates its own religion.

Welcome to the horde.

Photo: A Zombie Horde, by Martin SoulStealer from London, England (The Horde) [CC BY 2.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

Premium Content

How Religious Success Can Threaten Faith

Last updated on: May 8, 2018 at 12:45 pm By Gene Veith

0 Comments

Eric Voegelin (1901-1985) is a thinker I want to look into more, writing as he does about civilizational change and the dire influence of gnosticism. In this quotation, he says that the “worldly success” of a religion brings on its decline. This is because a religion of power is incompatible with a religion of faith.

From The New Science of Politics: An Introduction, pp. 122-123:

The life of the soul in openness toward God, the waiting, the periods of aridity and dulness, guilt and despondency, contrition and repentance, forsakenness and hope against hope, the silent stirrings of love and grace, trembling on the verge of a certainty which if gained is loss—the very lightness of this fabric may prove too heavy a burden for men who lust for massively possessive experience. The danger of a breakdown of faith to a socially relevant degree, now, will increase in the measure in which Christianity is a worldly success, that is, it will grow when Christianity penetrates a civilizational area thoroughly, supported by institutional pressure. . . . The more people are drawn or pressured into the Christian orbit, the greater will be the number among them who do not have the spiritual stamina for the heroic adventure of the soul that is Christianity; and the likeliness of a fall from faith will increase when civilizational progress of education, literacy, and intellectual debate will bring the full seriousness of Christianity to the understanding of ever more individuals. Both of these processes characterized the high Middle Ages.”

Voegelin, who resisted labels and did not seem to belong to a specific church body, identified himself as a “pre-Nicene Christian.”

Though this passage contrasts the religion of power and worldly success of the Middle Ages–what we might call the theology of glory–with the life of faith, Voegelin is critical of Luther. And yet, he had a Lutheran funeral.

Other Voegelians, though, say that Voegelin was unfair to Luther, missing, for example, his doctrine of vocation. See the following excellent articles on the website Voegelinview:

Ellis Sandoz, Voegelin’s Relationship to Christianity

Henrik Syse, Was Eric Voegelin Fair To Martin Luther? Reflections On Voegelin’s Treatment Of Luther In The History Of Political Ideas

Joshua Mitchell, Voegelin And The Scandal Of Luther: Philosophy, Faith, And The Modern Age

HT: George Strieter, who put me onto Voegelin and who gave me the above quotation.

Premium Content

Another Look at How Fathers Influence Their Children’s Churchgoing

Last updated on: May 6, 2018 at 4:57 pm By Gene Veith

0 Comments

Nathan Rinne, who blogs with Jordan Cooper at Just and Sinner here at Patheos, discusses a post that I wrote a number of years ago entitled “Raising children so they will go to church as adults”.

I drew on a 1994 study in Switzerland, published in 2000, that found that if the father goes to church regularly, the children are likely to attend regularly when they grow up. If the father does not attend, regardless of what the mother does, the children are likely not to church attend when they grow up.

Here are some specifics, as reported in Touchstone:

“In short, if a father does not go to church, no matter how faithful his wife’s devotions, only one child in 50 will become a regular worshipper. If a father does go regularly, regardless of the practice of the mother, between two-thirds and three-quarters of their children will become churchgoers (regular and irregular). If a father goes but irregularly to church, regardless of his wife’s devotion, between a half and two-thirds of their offspring will find themselves coming to church regularly or occasionally.

A non-practicing mother with a regular father will see a minimum of two-thirds of her children ending up at church. In contrast, a non-practicing father with a regular mother will see two-thirds of his children never darken the church door. If his wife is similarly negligent that figure rises to 80 percent!”

I discuss this phenomenon in more detail in my book written with Mary Moerbe entitled Family Vocation: God’s Calling in Marriage, Parenting, and Childhood.

Read Nathan’s post, Men Matter: Expanding on the Most Memorable Post on Patheos I’ve Read (blush, blush). He has his students (I believe from Concordia St. Paul) read the findings and give their reactions. The students are somewhat incredulous, but say that, yes, this pretty much fits their experiences. I especially appreciated this response from a father who had stopped attending church regularly:

“Well, I have decided that I am going to give [attending church] another chance. There are two main factors that have lead me to this decision and the both came from me taking this class. First, by attending a church to write the paper I came to the realization that my wife and kids were also being affected by my hardheadedness about going to church. My family fell in love with where we went, and my oldest boy specifically keeps asking when he gets to go again. Second, the article you posted about fathers going to church having a correlation with their kids attending. This really spoke to me since, my kids deserve to see what church has to offer, like I did when I was younger, before they decide about their faith. So, in summary, I recognized that even though, in my mind, I have a legitimate reason not to attend. I need to but that aside for my family’s spiritual health.”

Here is the bibliographic information for the Swiss study, from the Christian Post:

“The Demographic Characteristics of the Linguistic and Religious Groups in Switzerland” by Werner Haug and Phillipe Warner of the Federal Statistical Office, Neuchatel. The study appears in Volume 2 of Population Studies No. 31, a book titled The Demographic Characteristics of National Minorities in Certain European States, edited by Werner Haug and others, published by the Council of Europe Directorate General III, Social Cohesion, Strasbourg, January 2000.

The findings are so dramatic and address such an urgent concern for the church that the study begs for replication in the United States today.

Any of you graduate students in the social sciences or ministry looking for a dissertation topic?

Photo: “Black Family at the Church of the Messiah,” [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

Premium Content

On Catholics’ “Indissolubility” of Marriage from a New Lutheran Blog

Last updated on: May 4, 2018 at 11:19 am By Gene Veith

0 Comments

I have blogged about my former student John Ehrett, who wrote that perceptive review of our book Authentic Christianity. I am glad to see that he is now writing for Patheos at his blog Between Two Kingdoms: Lutheran Musings on Christianity, Culture, and Civil Society. This will significantly enhance the Lutheran presence here at Patheos. I want to draw your attention to his discussion of the current controversy among Catholics over marriage.

First, though, read the Introduction to his blog, which quotes Hermann Sasse on the doctrine of the Two Kingdoms and suggests how he will try to apply it. I look forward to seeing how John applies the Two Kingdoms teaching to law and public policy, two of his numerous areas of expertise.

In his second post, Pope Francis, Nondenominationalist?, he discusses the controversy in Catholic circles about Pope Francis being open to allowing divorced and remarried Catholics to, in some cases, receive Holy Communion. He sees the Pope’s desire to decentralize the issue by leaving it up to individual priests to be similar to the decentralized, less dogmatic, trend of Non-denominational evangelicalism.

That is interesting in itself, but I want to focus on something he says in the course of his main subject. He looks at the Catholic doctrine that marriage cannot be dissolved, referring to the Pope’s encyclical Amoris laetitia that critics say weakens that teaching, and then raises questions about the practice of issuing annulments:

Not being Catholic myself, I’m perhaps outside my wheelhouse in even commenting on this issue, but there’s an important point in this debate that troubles me. Namely, characterizations of Amoris as uniquely disruptive to traditional teaching—or, perhaps, uniquely damaging to the sacramental view of marriage—seem (at least in my mind) difficult to square with the laxity of the existing annulment process (Douthat briefly touches on this point in a recent podcast interview). In order to obtain an annulment, a petitioner must show that one of five requisite elements of a Catholic marriage—freedom, consent, intent to be faithful, intent of the other’s good, and consent given in the presence of witnesses before a church official—was not met. Married on a beach by a Presbyterian minister? Marriage invalid. Fully expected to cheat during the marriage at some point? Marriage invalid. “Incapable of consenting” due to poor judgment at the time? Marriage invalid.

In short, the grounds for requesting annulment are so broad that they seem (at least to me) largely incompatible with the traditional “indissolubility” view of marriage. This “loophole problem” is reflected in the data: roughly 90% of annulment requests are granted (as of 2014). So, assuming both the sacramental view of marriage and that Amoris indeed represented a break from historic teaching, I’m left that the actual theological difficulties commonly attributed to Amoris really aren’t unique to that document. From the perspective of an Amoris critic, any pushback against Amoris really ought to be accompanied by pushback against a lenient annulment system.

[Keep reading. . .]

I have blogged about the Catholic practice of annulments and how it weakens the church’s teachings about marriage. The basis of an annulment, as opposed to a divorce, is that the marriage never really took place. As John says, there are any number of very common factors that invalidate even a sacramentally-conducted marriage.

In fact, Pope Francis, in one of his infamous off-the-cuff comments that had to be walked back, said that because of the lack of authentic commitment among couples, “the great majority of our sacramental marriages are null.”

The statement was controversial, but it is surely true, given current Catholic teaching and practice. Did the couple really know what they were getting into when they got married? Marriage invalid. But that could apply to almost any young, naive couple!

The problem is that Catholics cannot know whether they are married or not. Having a marriage license and being sacramentally married in church is not enough! Their inner attitudes at the time determine whether there was a valid marriage. What if you didn’t know what you were doing at the time but do now? Are you married? Can you do anything about your past ignorance?

So if “the great majority of our sacramental marriages are null,” that would mean that most Catholic husbands and wives are just “living in sin.” Their children are illegitimate. And since sexual cohabiting outside of wedlock is a mortal sin, they will be condemned to Hell.

Furthermore, since Catholics make marriage a sacrament, which is available only through their church, all Protestants, as well as couples from every other religion and every other culture, are not really married and will merit the same eternal punishment.

Now I know that this cannot be, that Catholics do have a high view of marriage, including the teaching that it is indissoluble. But that teaching is fatally undermined by the logic of annulments.

Much better is the teaching that marriage is not a sacrament but a VOCATION, a calling from God Himself. As such, marriage is available to all human beings, of all religions and none, a function of God’s secular Kingdom, to which all belong. Marriage is grounded in the objectivity of God, rather than the subjectivity of the couples. “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (Matthew 19:6).

Photo by miltonhuallpa95 via Pixabay, CC0, Creative Commons

Premium Content

Respecting the Office

Last updated on: May 1, 2018 at 3:20 pm By Gene Veith

0 Comments

French President Emmanuel Macron and American President Donald Trump disagree on just about everything–economics, immigration, the Middle East, climate change, you name it. And yet in Macron’s recent state visit to the U.S., the two got along swimmingly. President Trump called his French counterpart “perfect”! How is that possible?

Columnist Marc Thiessen observed that Macron treated Trump with respect. Which prompted Trump to treat him with respect. Thiessen notes our current political and governmental dysfunctions, blaming Democrats for projecting nothing but sheer contempt for the president, and, instead of pursuing normal opposition, promoting “resistance.” This has gotten so bad, he says, that Democrats won’t even co-operate with Trump on actions that they agree with! (Thiessen’s column came out before the scabrous White House Correspondents dinner.)

From Thiessen’s column, MWhat Democrats Can Learn from Emmanuel Macron:

How can two men so diametrically opposed get along so well? Simple. Macron holds his ground on issues that matter to him, but he treats the president of the United States with respect — and has found his respect reciprocated.

Democrats in Washington should try it.

In a toast at the state dinner, Macron explained his approach this way: “We both know that none of us easily changes our minds, but we will work together, and we have this ability to listen to one another.” Wouldn’t it be refreshing to hear Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) or House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) say the same? At the end of his visit, Macron was asked how he could have such a warm relationship with Trump while disagreeing with him on so many issues. “It’s the same thing in all families,” he said. “Let’s share the disagreements . . . To just say ‘I disagree and I don’t want to speak with you’ [is] ridiculous.”

Yes, it is.

After Macron delivered an address to Congress in which he warned against the dangers of “isolationism, withdrawal and nationalism,” many suggested that his speech was a “rebuke” to Trump. No, it wasn’t. Macron didn’t rebuke the president; he expressed respectful disagreement on a host of issues. Too many in Washington can no longer tell the difference.

Instead of simply applauding Macron’s words, perhaps Democrats ought to emulate Macron’s actions. Today, the Democratic Party is no longer the opposition; it is the self-proclaimed “resistance” that considers its job to stop Trump from doing or accomplishing anything. Even in areas where both parties traditionally cooperate, such as the approval of qualified nominees, Trump’s candidates face near unified Democratic opposition. While cooperation on difficult issues such as tax cuts or Obamacare may be a bridge too far, Democrats are so blinded by their contempt for Trump that they cannot bring themselves to work with him on issues where they profess to agree, such as infrastructure or extending protections under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. These failures hurt the millions of ordinary people who depend on leaders in Washington to work together for the good of the country.

But what if you don’t respect Trump? Then you respect his office.

The distinction between the person and the office is a long held Christian teaching, most fully developed in the Doctrine of Vocation.

You may not like your pastor and he may have all kinds of serious failings. And yet, by virtue of his office as a called and ordained servant of the Word, God works through him so that the absolution he pronounces and the Sacraments he presides over are valid.

Your father may have been a drunk who neglected his family, but he is still your father, through whom God gave you life and by virtue of his office is entitled to the honor required in the Ten Commandments.

Your boss may be a no-good skinflint, but because of his office he can fire you, so you need to do what he says on the job.

You may disagree with and dislike the person who was elected president, but the office of the presidency has the dignity placed on it by our Constitution and American history. This is true even if the holder undermines the dignity of the office. So there should be self-imposed limits on expressions of derision and hatred for the person placed, by his office, in authority over us. And, yes, Republicans have often been guilty of violating this principle, just as Democrats are today.

Illustration by Bloomberg L.P. (Bloomberg L.P.) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

Premium Content