Taking up my own challenge, I've been thinking a bit about how one might construct a theological basis for political liberalism. Obviously this won't be of much interest to those who see no need for such a basis. And I should say that I am not quite sure I would claim this as my own view. It is just some thoughts in process.
1. The departure point for all Christian thinking about politics is 'Jesus is Lord'. This is both a factual statement - he simply does rule over all things, whether anyone acknowledges it or not - and a polemical statement - he, and only he, truly rules.
2. As both a factual and a polemical statement, 'Jesus is Lord' is a positive statement with a negative implication. The positive statement is to do with Christ: he really reigns and rules. The negative statement is to do with everyone and everything else: they do not reign and rule (in the same sense). So 'Jesus is Lord' is both a description, advanced in the face of opposition, of Christ's sovereignty, and a delimitation of the spheres of all other powers.
3. If Jesus is Lord, Caesar is not. Caesar can be and must be honoured and obeyed, but this is for the Lord's sake, not Caesar's. We should be clear here that 'Caesar' for us today includes both demos and despotes, the people and the politicians. Caesar does not have ultimate sovereignty. The 'will of the people' (whatever that means) cannot convey or carry such sovereignty.
4. In particular, Caesar is not Lord over the minds and consciences of people. Since Jesus is Lord over all, and over each individual, nobody else is Lord. This does not mean overthrowing all order - Caesar is still to be obeyed in his sphere, family order is still to be followed, in the workplace there will always be hierarchy - but these things are dramatically relativised. As soon as they step over into areas of conscience, they transgress.
5. Since Jesus really rules, any attempt by human beings to put his rule into practice through the political sphere is tantamount to blasphemy. It must include somewhere within it the idea that he does not currently rule, that he is not sovereign, and that he needs us to establish his rule for him. But he does really rule; it is unnecessary and even sinful to try to bring in his rule through political power.
6. Since the Jesus who is Lord is the Creator, there is a common good which can be served by politicians. Even amongst people with wildly differing views of what 'the good' is, there will be sufficient common humanity (which exists after the image of Christ...) for leaders to be able to identify and strive towards some goals which are genuinely for the good of all, and for which good arguments can be made. So within the limited sphere allowed to human leadership, there is positive good to be done.
7. Since the Jesus who is Lord is a Servant, Christian leaders should seek to serve - and in particular to serve those who oppose them. Therefore Christians should be at the forefront of developments for the good and freedom of those with whom they disagree.
Possibly more to come...
Showing posts with label liberalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label liberalism. Show all posts
Thursday, July 23, 2015
Monday, July 20, 2015
Liberalism is about disagreeing
Poor old Tim Farron. A couple of days into his new job, and already he is under attack for holding orthodox Christian beliefs. Specifically, he is accused of holding illiberal views on homosexuality, something which is deemed ironic for a leader of the Liberal Democrats.
But this is what liberalism is all about. Tim Farron has his Christian faith, and appears in general to accept the ethical conclusions that flow from that. It is fair enough to ask whether you want someone with those convictions representing you, but before anyone leaps to conclusions it is worth asking 'what does Tim Farron do next?' Does he try to legislate his convictions? Does he advocate that anyone who disagrees with him should be pilloried and driven from public life?
No, he doesn't. Because he is a liberal, and liberalism is about what happens when you disagree. It is about working out what the common good looks like when we don't have a common worldview. As such, it seems to me that it will be an increasingly important part of our political landscape going forward. And Tim Farron, as someone who holds a minority worldview, could be well placed to revive liberalism's fortunes after the crash at the end of the coalition.
As an aside, I think personally this is very difficult. I flinch when I read Farron quoted as saying 'this is my private faith' - really? It is your private faith that Jesus is Lord of all the universe and all people in it? But then, I don't know how exactly I would tackle this. I'd like to see the interface between Christianity and liberalism worked through a bit more, but then that was hardly likely in the Guardian...
Those who are accusing Tim Farron of illiberalism should show where in his behaviour he has been illiberal; instead they have simply decided that anyone who doesn't agree with the majority opinion on sexuality or faith is inherently anti-liberal. So there's the real irony: there is nothing more illiberal than insisting that a particular set of views, particularly minority views, is beyond the pale in public life, and yet this is being done in the name of liberalism.
But this is what liberalism is all about. Tim Farron has his Christian faith, and appears in general to accept the ethical conclusions that flow from that. It is fair enough to ask whether you want someone with those convictions representing you, but before anyone leaps to conclusions it is worth asking 'what does Tim Farron do next?' Does he try to legislate his convictions? Does he advocate that anyone who disagrees with him should be pilloried and driven from public life?
No, he doesn't. Because he is a liberal, and liberalism is about what happens when you disagree. It is about working out what the common good looks like when we don't have a common worldview. As such, it seems to me that it will be an increasingly important part of our political landscape going forward. And Tim Farron, as someone who holds a minority worldview, could be well placed to revive liberalism's fortunes after the crash at the end of the coalition.
As an aside, I think personally this is very difficult. I flinch when I read Farron quoted as saying 'this is my private faith' - really? It is your private faith that Jesus is Lord of all the universe and all people in it? But then, I don't know how exactly I would tackle this. I'd like to see the interface between Christianity and liberalism worked through a bit more, but then that was hardly likely in the Guardian...
Those who are accusing Tim Farron of illiberalism should show where in his behaviour he has been illiberal; instead they have simply decided that anyone who doesn't agree with the majority opinion on sexuality or faith is inherently anti-liberal. So there's the real irony: there is nothing more illiberal than insisting that a particular set of views, particularly minority views, is beyond the pale in public life, and yet this is being done in the name of liberalism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)