Why Archbishop Williams is not a “liberal”

James K. A. Smith, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Calvin College, contributes a refreshing post on why Archbishop of Canterbury is not a “liberal.” This may come as a shock to folks like Gerald Augustinus and his followers who have mindlessly made a habit of referring to Williams as “the hyper-liberal arch-druid.” An excerpt:

One often finds the talking heads on the BBC and op-eds in various papers referring to the “sharia row” as another indication of Rowan Williams’ “liberal” tendencies (surely one of the slipperiest and equivocal epithets we have in religious circles). But if one actually attends to his argument–and his corpus–I think one finds that Williams’ is, in fact, a critic of liberalism. Indeed, the kernel of his argument at the Royal Courts of Justice was calling into question the liberal monopoly of identity that characterizes the (supposedly) “secular” state. One of the hallmarks of liberalism (fostered here in England, as well as the States, by John Locke) is a secularization of the “public” sphere of politics, economics, and the common good, along with a corresponding privatization of religious identity as an affair of the heart–a private and interior matter of one’s “personal relationship” to God. In other words, religion is fine for the weekends, “if you’re into that.” But don’t bring it to work. Don’t let it affect how you function “in public.” In short, you’re welcome to let religion be one of your private pursuits, a kind of hobby. It’s fine to let religion be “part” of who you are, but that religious faith can’t shape or influence you in such a way that it would make a difference in how you pursue life in public.

[…]

I hear in Williams’ argument a refusal of these two aspects of liberalism: a “secular” democratic monopoly on identity along with its corresponding privatization (and therefore triviliazation) of religious faith. In short, the Archbishop is no “liberal.”

Smith’s post is also relevant to discussions we have had here at Vox Nova about the problems that arise when we carelessly throw around the word “liberal.”

For those still in doubt about whether Williams is “one of them,” do check out some of his writings. You can start with a lecture he gave here in Toronto this past April: “The Bible: Reading and Hearing.”

EDIT: I missed one of Gerald’s recent rants about Williams. Check out its liberal use of the word — um — “liberal” (as well as the word “wimp”) here.