Faith and the liberal state

hadrian

What you term 'liberal Protestantism' is a misnomer.
Protestants as the designation suggests stand on the ground of Scriptural as opposed either to ecclesiastical Authority and Absolutes or secular/humanistic 'value-free' absolutes.
However authentic Protestantism emphasises the duty and right of the individual to attain to personal conviction and faith in Christ('regeneration' or the 'ye must be born again' doctrine). Nobody by nature/blood/inheritance/nationality is a member of Christ's Church- it depends on a spiritual change ( repentance) and the Church has learned that this guarantees religious freedom in the civil sphere under which men do naturally exist. The church cannot coerce; equally the State cannot/should not force.
However, the State's own duty of toleration is itself a fruit of Christianity with its respect for persons as made in the image of God and so to be accorded equal protection before the Law. This freedom clearly can only last as long as there is a wide enough consent to it. Where Biblical Christianity wanes it will be put at risk as the State encroaches and tries to substitute a false equality- just as it is threatening to do at present to many Christian denominations that out of obediance to Biblical standards will not obey the diktats of moral relativism imposed by the State. The issue of sexuality is a point in hand.
Liberal Protestantism generally tends to mimic the fads and whims of the age-Williams of Canterbury is a prime example. They usually speak in absolutely incomprehensible equivocation just for the very reason that they have given up 'the offence of the Gospel' with its unvarnished call to repent, believe, obey Christ and His Word.
From what I can see churches that resile from Biblical Authority tend to become not 'counter culture' but engines for sin dressed up in all the latest humanistic veneers.

Athanasius

Liberal protestants are in a muddle over theology. I call this bad faith.

Helena

I think my problem with present-day use of 'liberal' is that the epithet has little to do with the etymology of the word, which refers to 'generosity' or 'freedom.' Modern use is, instead, as vague, and therefore confusing, as the other buzz-words we contend with, e.g. 'racism' and 'fascism.' So I move that such buzzers should either be clearly defined at the outset, or else banished from any given discussion.

Our blog meister has certainly over-used 'liberal' here:
'the "liberal" state' --- I don't know what that is, but assume that Theo appropriates a euphemism for Communism. Well that's not about freedom. Indeed, by Theo's own tenets: this type of state opposes religion and the rights of the unborn. "To say nothing of the already born," I would add!

"liberal" protestantism - Thank you Hadrian for engaging with that one: you aid and enlighten as ever. Again, it seems to me, 'liberal' in this context is more about marxist politics than about "free will" for Christians, who concern themselves with the welfare of their souls.

But Faith that is 'liberal' rather than private: whatever is the man talking about!?!

I think that, in its Christian contexts, 'Faith' indicates belief and trust in God. Such Faith is antithetical to karl marx and his successors; so then, is 'liberal faith' an oxymoron?

Here I must turn to accept Mr. Moore's point: which, decontextualised as it is, seems to respond to the directives of 'liberals' [socialists] who tell Christians to hide our faith behind closed doors.

Yet Theo says that 'liberal' faith is good faith (well - in tune with his 'liberal' state); and that RC faith is bad. OK - if he can Judge another person's (private) belief and trust in God - he surely is a 'liberal' saint!!

However, if Theo is consistent in meaning 'Faith' in its public sense of 'a set of teachings about belief in God': then his argument sets Protestants and Catholics against each other. Yet again.

Another 'Liberal' game of Divide and Conquer, anyone?

Fergus Pickering

I suppose, Theo, that what you are talking about is theChurchof England which is not, you may be surprised to hear, a protestant church. I recited for years a creed that told me it was the Holy Catholic Church, which I presume it still is, replacing, don't you see, the Roman Church, which is in error. Romans have the Pope. The C of E has the Queen instead. Just thought I'd clear that up.

Ray

'Liberal protestants' reject anything to do with God. Period!

Athanasius

I'm still trying to get my head around the idea that someone who rejects "the idea of a religious law" can dismiss another's faith as "bad". It is difficult to respond in charity.

The point about being Christian, surely, is that we allow Christ to live in us, and we live in Christ. Wherever you derive your moral law from - be it the revelations of God through the Church, Scripture, or even some sort of personal revelation - it is necessary to be completely submissive to God. This is what sets us free: freedom in Christ, so that we are in the world but not of the world. Anything less is a partial faith, at best.

So our attitude towards the liberal state is precisely that it is, and must be, subservient to God's law. The state has no authority over and above that which God has ordained. So long as there is no difference between the norms of the state, liberal or otherwise, and those of the faithful, there need be no conflict. When there is a difference, there will be - it is that simple.

The point is twofold: a liberal state inevitably ends up compelling Christians to act against their conscience. The equality legislation favoured by this government is a case in point. In such instances, it ceases to look less 'liberal' and more a tyranny of a contrary ideology. Secondly, Christians cannot be indifferent to the salvation of their fellow citizens; the policies of a liberal state may endanger that.

So the Roman Catholic position, which you mock, is entirely consistent. Our loyalty is to the Pope & Church, not the state, because we believe that God has revealed Himself through the Church. We profess a faith in Christ which MUST take priority over state allegiance. Of course, when the state does not act contrary to the Church, there is no problem. We do not hanker after a theocracy: indeed, we are indifferent to the model of the state, since its authority over us is secondary to that of God through His Church.

[Of course Hadrian et al will dispute that God reveals Himself through the Roman Church - but let's not get into all that all over again]

What I am waiting for from you, Mr Hobson, is a proper defence of liberal protestantism. For as I understand your argument, there will be no conflict between faith and state since there is no particular faith.

Is it that old chestnut of 'you believe what you want to believe, just don't force anyone else to believe the same thing?' Because if so, I wonder if you can really feel that you believe it at all. Take abortion, for instance, which is a hot-topic for religious folk in the US under this administration. If you believe that abortion is a moral evil, how could you in all conscience not seek to prevent abortions? It only becomes a problem if you don't really believe it is a moral evil.

I suspect that liberal protestants take recourse to a position of entirely superficial belief, that is, one that does not effect a genuine internal change.

As someone said earlier in the thread, to belong to Christ's Church, to be a Christian, requires a conversion: if such a conversion takes place, so that Christ lives in us and us in Him, then it is impossible for one's articles of faith, whatever they may be, to be regarded simply as vague opinions that do not really matter in a wider civic context.

Simon Denis

Yes, Athanasius - amen to all that - but we do not live in a properly liberal state. We live in a coercive, semi-socialist society which seeks to impose its new morality in the teeth of the old. Take the issue of the Catholic adoption agencies. Any properly - classical - liberal state would allow the church to make arrangements for the adoption of children by couples of whom it morally approved. It would not force it out of business by demanding that it cater for homosexuals. Other agencies could cater for them; meanwhile, Christians of any denomination - let's put the Reformation issues for one side for a moment - should be permitted to make their opinion of such arrangements plain. This freedom it seems is now a luxury only afforded to muslims. I am sorry that an acute commentator like Charles Moore should have fallen into the American error of calling socialism "liberal". It is the reverse.

hadrian

I do not wish to derail this discussion from its central thrust- that of what it means to be particularly a 'liberal' Protestant. However, one poster has said that the CofE cannot be 'Protestant' as it recites the creed that it belongs to the 'holy, catholic church.' Of course there is no contradiction in being authentically Protestant and 'catholic' as that simply means it is part of the universal ( catholic) Church of Jesus Christ which subsists worldwide in various national and denominational forms. Where Scripture is formally recognised as the Supreme Law Word and Gospel of Grace, where salvation is understood as in the divine Christ alone, there you have the authentic people of God. St Paul sums it up in his Second Epistle to the Corinthians, at the portion marked chap5v18:'All things are of Gog, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ and hath given to us this ministry of reconciliation.'-
You will notice the term 'Roman' is missing from the creed! The universal bonds of the Christian Church are not rooted in a part of the church itself but 'of God' and is a mystical, spiritual, covenantal bond in God's Law Word, so Protestants reject Pope and Vatican as false substitutes.
'The term 'liberal' with respect to Protestantism is indeed misused. What it seeks to identify is that those self-styled 'liberals' are 'freed' or 'liberated' from the Word of God written as the full and final expression of God's authority and instructing word to us. In that sense it is self contradictory for Protestantism is distinguished from both atheistic/deistic humanism and Romanism in that it locates supreme Wisdom purely in the Revealed Word and not in men, church or popes etc. We live UNDER the Word , we dare not distrust it, seek to judge it, question it or reply against it- the very essence of the original sin and the Fall.

rivere

The view that the "Church" is socially dogmatic obviously neglects post-WWII theological models of doctrine and Church in a variety of denominations. One could look at a reformed democratic model's such as Moltmann's which suggests that the Church is a free communion of equals. Further more, such generalisations about Catholicism seem more apparent at the moment when we have a pope which opposed the liberation theology of the 80s in which the building blocks of real progress between Church and liberal society could have been formed. I do not agree that such a clear dichotomy can be made between the social attitudes of liberal protestantism and catholicism, and if it is attempted it must not be as simplistic as the above.

Roger Thornhill

If those faiths believe it is not personal or private, it will always be in conflict with a State or even just a population that believes in personal sovereignty and liberty. If it goes beyond, what is to say that those in that beyond agree even with the need to engage?

Much of our Common Law comes from societies and cultures that were so outside of or in spite of Christianity, not because of it. In fact, Christianity, in England at least, has been Anglicised, bent to fit and finally put (rightly) in its box - marked "Strictly Private and Confidential - Do Not Open Until Xmas".

Even if their faith is "about everything" it has to be about everything FOR THEMSELVES ONLY, there is NO right to force it upon others. How on earth can that exist in a Liberal environment?

Ergo, the OP is non-sequitur.

tally2

I'm sure Mr. Thornhill knows what he thinks he means. He disconnects, though, with every fact I ever knew about Christianity or Britain.

The polarisation of 'Public' and 'Private' is an aspect of modern critical theory; and as such it leads to endless and confusing discussion, and usually becomes an adjunct to marxism.

Nevetheless, this strand, and the original quote from Mr. Moore, have already clarified that faith, for Christians, works outward from within. That is, faith germinates within, it informs everthing the individual thinks, says, and does and therefore becomes public.

Christianity manifests itself in the form of Church - that is public because it contains a collection of people who share faith, and provides buildings where they practice that faith in public. Whatever Mr. Thornhill derives from his denial, trivialisation, dismissal, over-simplification, etc. is his personal private affair - but the Church has a cornerstone of everything British for a lot longer than he has.

Mr. Thornhill should therefore understand that anyone who has engaged in private or public study of the public teachings and history of the Church will be untouched by his ranting. We will continue to practice our faith, and in so doing we will propagate it without forcing it on anyone. At least, no further than we do by existing.

hadrian

'Strictly private and confidential' and in a hermetically sealed is how Mr Thornhill wishes the Word of God to be treated, with 'no rights' to public expression or authority. Well, that beautifully sums up our radically atheistoc, anti-God crooked and perverse generation. Man's word must reign supreme...by which they mean either 'my own word' or 'the State's'. Having inculcated that everything is purposeless and value-free they then with laughably instant self contradiction wish to enforce their own word as 'right'! Which simply proves their idea of a radical value neutral society is impossible.
The people that try to put 'God in a box' will ultimately find it's themselves who'll end up in one.
As Luther told Erasmus: Your thoughts of God are too human.'

Helena

"Christianity, in England at least, has been Anglicised, bent to fit and finally put (rightly) in its box - marked "Strictly Private and Confidential - Do Not Open Until Xmas"."

Thank you Roger Thornhill , I am so grateful for the enlightenment of your reference to the ‘box' for Xmas. I now understand why we Christians have to be tied up and imprisoned...

Antichrist is playing tit-for-tat and Imitatio Christi: because that is what Christ Incarnate did to Satan (according to St. John and interpreters like Bede)!!! Revelation 20 [KJV]:

2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.:

So here he is then!!! All released and ‘liberated' - and taking out his bitterness on us! And since your X is an abbreviation of Chi-Rho ... we know that we are Freed by his Cross (Chi, or otherwise) and nurtured by His Word; and that the faithful will ultimately unite on the next great feast of His Incarnation!!!

Thank you so much for clarifying that! I now am developing a strong suspicion as to what the ‘Liberal State' is, too! One man's freedom is another man's Hell.

David Bouvier

If I understand you tally2, you are objecting a (Marxian) dichotomy of public (so state controlled) vs. private (off the streets, invisible to others).

It is certainly an error to ignore the middle category, lets call it "social" or "civil" that is neither subject to state regulation nor merely a matter of private behaviour.

No doubt all religious people do not agree with absolutely all policies and law promulgated by the state. That is in no way distinctive - no one does. Civil society has to embody social tensions outside some leftist revolutionary fantasy.

In a tolerant society, we accept our freedom in return for accepting other peoples freedom.

In an intolerant society we make life a high stakes battle to impose our preferences over other peoples (and pray that we are on top).

If Charles Moore perceives "tension" I would suggest it is because of the growing intolerance of the Labour regime.

But I still have no idea what Theo means by the Liberal State (sounds like some ill-defined abstraction from some course he did)

Craig Strachan

I see no reason why either Catholicism or Islam should be in conflict with the liberal state, to the extent that they are compatible with freedom of consicience, freedom of expression, scientific inquiry, medical progress, gender equality and gay rights.

hadrian

Well, Craig Strachan,
I suppose God the Creator should be very grateful that He is allowed to speak at all to His crearures - provided of course He doesn't infringe their agenda of 'correctness' on the issues you identify. One could imagine Christ being rather less welcome than his 'liberal' modern supposed spokesmen when He states without embellishment:Repent; Believe; Go, and sin no more; Keep the Commandments. And do NOT rely on your own inherent 'righteousness' to justify you before your sin hating God.

Helena

You are right, of course, Craig Strachan. Christianity fostered education in the West - developing it through monastery schools and then in the universities. They did learn some science and medicine from the Moslems, also; and science and mathematics were always part of the curriculum. Then, of course, some of the first infirmaries we had were in monasteries and run by Christian institutions.

Homosexuality was always a problem in those environments, I have heard; though. Thank God, it was never accepted as right to enforce it as a rule. I also thank God, that my Christian name is no more 'Gay' than my 'orientation'.

So whatever this 'liberal' state is - and I assume it's Communism - it most certainly did not invent anything on the list you cite.

I would argue, though, that the 'state we are in' increases all forms of restriction as we write. Freedom of thought and expression are no longer tolerated - and we've all had our vocabularies restricted to these peculiar buzzwords propagated by a bunch of franco-germans; and the results of scientific research need to be perused carefully in light of politico-economic influences upon them. As for gender equality... what a contradiction in terms anyway.

Male and female have never been the same thing: Christians and Jews accept that God intended us to be different from each other. Certainly, few men or women have ever had much political or economic power. Those who have such powers now seem to exercise more abuse than they ever did before - thus, in some professions, a woman may not get preferment or placement unless agrees to be a feminist. 'It is expected' - you see.

So you certainly raise an interesting point, Craig! Nevertheless, I believe that the older, Judaeo-Christian order encouraged more freedom than the neu 'liberal' one. I think that is because the Christian way encourages the search for Truth. The 'liberal' society, instead, twists any fact into any shape that suits it at any given moment. The two ways are, therefore, incompatible.

Fergus Pickering

Off topic perhaps, but what exactly are Gay Rights I mean as opposed to anybody else's rights. What peculiar rights do you have if you are gay?

hadrian

Well, Fergus, one de facto gay right that others don't have is special inheritance rights for the surviving partner. Two sisters who'd lived together all their lives meanwhile were denied similar tax exemption.
As to the basis of these 'gay rights'...arbitrary humanistic 'correctness'. This is the 'liberal' State. One cannot imagine Christ or John the Baptist would be any more popular with either our State or church rulers than they were in their own day. Human nature doesn't change.

Craig Strachan

@hadrian: I think God speaks to his "creatures" through their God-given consciences, not from the pages of ancient texts.

@Helena: You are of course right about the role of Christianity in education, and right that Islam preserved and transmitted much knowledge to the West. However organized religion has often been an obstacle to scientific progress, as can be seen today in the attitude of various churches towards stem cell research. And the modern Islamic world is not exactly a hotbed of innovation.

@Fergus Pickering: I think ou are right to imply that gays should simply have the rights, as individuals and as couples, that all human beings enjoy. Those rights have historically been denied to gays, and contemporary oppostion to granting them is often rooted in misplaced religious sentiment.

hadrian

Of course, Craig, we all have consciences but the problem is they are like every aspect of our beings, by nature, fallen and unreliable.
Appeal to the 'inner light' of conscience is of course a convenient way of eluding the direct objective and unwelcome instructions, commandments and communication of our God and His objective existence.
What one person's conscience will accuse, another person's will excuse. God has not left us to cultural relativity in ethics or salvation. He reveals it in His Word and the Word made flesh- Christ.
For us to determine what is good or evil ourselves is the essence of ethical rebellion and the fall. 'Ye shall be as gods, knowing [determining] good and evil.' Genesis Chap3v5
Our consciences can, according to Scripture, be 'seared', 'evil', 'weak',defiled' and in need of 'purging'. It canot act as the supreme authority, being part of our creatureliness and so fallen.
Not only does Scripture testify to this but I think if we're honest we know it to be the case by experience. Certainly if Conscience were the supreme gguide you'd imagine it'd lead us all to a uniform and harmonious end but we find it is far otherwise. The answer is God's Revealed Law-Grace Word.

Craig Strachan

hadrian, if you wish to locate meaning in the ancient texts that make up the scriptural canon, however haphazard the assemblage and imperfect the translation, that is your perfect right. We all have our own truths, after all.

However, I feel pretty sure that you do not observe all the arcane requirements of scripture in your own life.

Helena

Craig - the consciousness of human beings is limited and fallible. If, in addition, said creatures ignore or disable their consciences and the Word of God, then they will misapply learning (or the search for truth) and knowledge.

In the end, it doesn't matter what label malefactors use to hide their actions - it's the actions that matter. However, what we label education aims, traditionally, to produce people who will work to the benefit of a beneficent society. So it might be unwise to jettison all educators when some fall below par. However, the secularist view of beneficent will be relative to secular agenda: the Ten Commandments will take a back seat.

We seem to have agreed though, that Christianity has nurtured an educational system that forms the basis of what you have inherited - --- Had it not been for that system, you probably wouldn't have scientific research as we know it.

So Stem Cell Research? My remarks obviously suggest that it depends on who does what with it. If you trust the communist state to do better than we see in Utopian literature (from More onward) - then that's your prerogative. But I say "God help you to place your faith wisely."

Suppose, for example, that Stem Cell Research enabled lengthening of the human lifespan to 400 years. Some 'liberal' youngsters were recently furious with me for saying nothing would be more terrible than being in this world so long.

So I wonder: would you also enforce a 400 year lifespan?

Craig Strachan

Helena: "We seem to have agreed though, that Christianity has nurtured an educational system that forms the basis of what you have inherited - --- Had it not been for that system, you probably wouldn't have scientific research as we know it."

Not sure about that - countries without a Christian educational tradition (China, Japan, India)have also produced science. Indeed they were probably more scientifically advanced than the West in the period when Chritianity's grip on education was firmest.

And

"So I wonder: would you also enforce a 400 year lifespan?"

No, I think people should be able to choose to end their own lives with dignity. I expect that for most of us, that would be an option we'd exercise long before we hit the big 400!

hadrian

Craig- It is a very convenient dodge to say 'we all have our own truths'. Truth, if it is worthy of that designation, never remains a 'private matter' nor could it. Even the proposition that it can has obvious and inescapably public repercussions!
As for the 'arcane' stipulations of Scripture, if you are refering to various O.T. ceremonial/dietary etc laws, then you miss their N.T. application which is that they foreshadow Christ and spiritual sanctification. The Church after Christ is separated from the world by simple spiritually empowered ethical injunctions. In the O.T. era there was a greater physical aspect to this when the Church was mainly confined to the Ancient People of Israel, the Jews. When Christ broke down the Jew-Gentile barrier, as the N.T. clearly teaches, those old separation signs went.
The O.T. civil laws expired as well, many being now fulfilled as ecclesiastical discipline, the others simply acting as 'general equity' guides to present rulers for what can be considered God honouring laws best fitted to protect man and his welfare.
Anyway, countless Christians who know their need of a Saviour and rejoice in Christ as that unique One can testify and have done down the centuries that your quibbles cannot withstand the innate need of men to have their sin dealt with. Those 'arcane' laws must all be seen in that pressing ultimate existential reality.

Craig Strachan

hadrian - I'm interested that you consider that the O.T. laws "expired". Does that apply to what Leviticus 18:22 says (or appears to say, under certain interpretations) about homsexuality?

hadrian

Craig-
You will notice I stated that though the old Jewish state laws have de facto 'expired' along with the passing of the old Jewish state and its transformation into the wider spiritual, catholic( small 'C'!) Kingdom of Christ, I was careful to say the general equity of the laws remain to guide which sins should be regarded also as crimal activity and the maximum kind of penalties that could attach to such crimes.
On the specific issue of homosexual activity it is clear that church membership is not compatible therewith and that the top ecclesiastical sanction of excommunication can be applied. For current civil application it is open to a Christian polity to restrict such behaviour though St Paul also mentions that with respect to those outside the church he judges according to a different criterion and that there were members of the church who had been active in this lifestyle that is sinful and must be repented of and resisted. This would suggest a measure ( tightly controlled) of civil toleration towards non churched active homosexuals but no approval. Certainly it is difficult to see how the very vociferous and promoting policies we see today are in the least acceptable to Biblical Standards. It is said of a seriously decadent nation that 'they cannot blush', they are shameless. Much of what goes on in the name of 'Liberalism' in places like Soho would seem to bear that out.

Trevor Reed

Jesus speaks of another Kingdom with it's own understandings. It is in total opposition to this world order and it's citizens are called to be separate. Not only that, we are called to bring others out of the kingdom of the earth and into the Kingdom of heaven. The Kingdom of heaven, God and Jesus the King, are within the hearts of believers and the confirmation of this is the presence of the Spirit of God that all who believe experience. To become involved and try to influence the world order, is to fail to understand that there is, like there is in the kingdom of heaven, a spiritual prince with authority in control, hence the decline of everything moral and loving and the increase of everything evil. Christians are called to live in, but be separate from the world, whilst flavouring it with love by meeting the needs, where possible, of people, who are the image of God, thus showing the nature of Jesus.

hadrian

Trevor,
I agree with you substantially, brother.
However, whilst the church by definition is indeed the 'called out', the church, commissioned by Christ, has a mission to see the kingdoms of this world transformed into the Kingdom of light. This is done not by 'carnal weapons'but the spiritually transforming power of the preached, convictiing Word through which God will sovereignly bestow the miracle of new birth and personal faith as He wishes-John Chap5v21 ' For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom He will.' The Gospel will spread entirely at the Lord's good pleasure through His sent preachers and church service.
However the Church must also witness to the rulers of this world; they are called to rule justly. If they weren't the world would long ago have descended into unbearable barbarity. The Church must act as salt and light to reclaim all man's cultural activities to be directed to the ultimate end of glorifying God and enjoying Him forever. The civil ruler we are explicitly told in the N.T. is a 'servant of God' so he has solemn obligations to ensure civil rule both honours God and thereby ensures justice to society and restrains evil.

Helena

Craig - "Indeed they were probably more scientifically advanced than the West in the period when Chritianity's grip on education was firmest."
Hmm. Well - you miss my point that our educational system would developed by means of Christianity. As to the superiority of other cultures... Britain's descending well into what I call the 5th World, at this point. And much of downward spiral is due to the work of those other cultures.

However, when I used to go and look at those other cultures - it was a different story. Then, British accomplishment made me proud to be British. And I was glad of our contribution to the development of science, and the material advancement of others.

OK - so pride comes before a fall...