First of all, I think trying to Christianize our secular society in order to protect ourselves from it's decadence is not going to work. These intolerant Christians view the LGBTQ community as decadent. Where are they going to put all the LGBTQ folks, in camps? Like modern leper colonies?
But more important IMO, if we're going to look to Jesus as our example, where did He go to meet Zacharias? Where did He go to meet with the publicans and sinners? If Christians of an intolerant sort are represented in these situations, they are represented by the Pharisees. To me, either isolating myself from nonbelievers or isolating them from me exposes me as having a weak relationship with the Holy Spirit. I'm being kept by the Holy Spirit as much as I choose to be. Where sin abounds, grace much more abounds. The first generation of believers could handle the decadence of Rome and emerge as overcomers. MAGA Christianity, if there is such a thing, is too inbred and fragile.
Speaking from my own experience, I think there is something to this thesis. I have been very much influenced by Hauerwas, I've read the Ben Op, and have dabbled with Radical Orthodoxy. For a long time I've thought of the Church along Hauerwasian lines, as a counter polis, etc. Of course in Hauerwas you do have a kind of post-liberalism and I've taken that (as I think he does) as less of a political project than a refusal to let Christian self-identity be understood in liberal terms. I'm part of a historic Anabaptist tradition and so my people's experience of persecution at the hands Christendom also makes me more friendly to Liberalism. At the same time, I also became aware of critiques of liberalism via the likes of Patrick Deneen, where its liberal politics as such that is blamed for the moral condition of our culture. I personally find that kind of critique pretty persuasive while also finding the "whats the alternative?" question equally pressing.
For me, there was a bit of a different vibe between the 2016 Trump campaign and the 2024 version. In 2016, I would have been very comfortable critiquing Trump and the evangelical alignment in Hauerwasian terms, Christian Nationalism, etc. I remember in 2024, I felt more cross pressure. A purely secular politics feels devoid of energy, nihilistic, and problematic. I've always been a big anti-Trump guy, I think the January 16 stuff should have disqualified him from politics perminantly. At the same time, having read JD Vance's conversion story in the Lamp, I remember feeling like Vance was a candidate that might be able to bring a thoughtful Christian voice. Looking at his list of influences--quite a few post liberal thinkers--I remember feeling like this was a guy shaped very much by the same sources I had been. So I guess I felt some sort of bookish affinity. So I felt slightly more open to seeing what a Trump-Vance presidency would accomplish. The last few years have disabused me of this. Vance now feels to me like a power-hungry sycophant who has done nothing but defend and apologize for everything Trump does. I really believe the gamble he took aligning himself with Trump will cost him politically. The Trump-Vance presidency has been cruel and devoid of Christian charity. I can't see how it's policies have in any way blunted the technological-capitalist machine.
So I guess I can see the argument that Post-liberalism does potentially lead to the politics of MAGA. The connection is nakedly there in some of the guys like Vance. That said, I agree with you that accusing Hauerwas of this is very unfair. In my slight flirtations with Trump-Vance I was aware that I was moving beyond Hauerwas.
I suppose I am still left with a question. I think some of the post-liberals are right that a purely secular politics has exhausted itself. Our culture feels morally bankrupt and very little stands in the way of the onward movement of Capitalism and Technique. What is the politics that can resist these forces and bring hope? Is Hauerwas ultimately correct that the only credible option is the faithful witness of Church? Maybe so. But then we are cast back upon the failures the Church to be the Church.
Richard, I subscribe to Rod Dreher's Substack, and I've been reading him for a long time before that. He has in no way abjured his "Benedict Option" stance, and, rather than taking up Christian Nationalism he has pointedly written against it. He believes people are turning to CN, in part, because of the failures of our institutions and the generalized nihilism of our society, not because CN a good thing. My opinion is that Rod gets too wrapped up in trying to figure out political solutions because of his own personal traumas at the hands of bullies, even though he knows and has stated that the real solutions are not political.
He also did not approve of everything Orban and his government did; he has especially decried the cronyism and corruption that Orban allowed. What was attractive to Dreher about Orban's "illiberalism" was the way Orban used his political power to uphold things the Hungarian people wanted upheld, against the dictates of Brussels' "liberalism" that is anything but the sort of "classical liberalism" upon which the US was founded on the heels of the Enlightenment, a liberalism that is truly tolerant. The things Orban made room for are the kinds of things that simply make sense in terms of social policy. Dreher lived in Budapest for four years, and I believe what he has to say about Orban.
I think Dreher is slippery on this point. (And I should lay my cards on the table that I'm not of fan of his.) For example, when he writes things like "Orban’s vision for Europe, as a continent of sovereign nations with strong borders, that has meaningfully returned to the Christian faith, is still the correct one." it's clear that he's pivoted away from a BenOp approach (at least as an exclusive approach) to focus upon the nation state becoming Christian. So while he avoids the label "Christian nationalism" his turn from church-to-state illustrates my descriptions over the last two posts.
I've read Dreher a good bit, and I would say this is a fair take. I resonate with him in some ways and differ in others. But your point about Orban/Hungary is apt.
When I started reading your posts, I expected "post-liberal theology" (a term I hadn't heard before) to be something like your own self-described position of "post-progressive". Instead, it appears from your description to be a traditional - indeed old-fashioned - stance of separation from the world, with some adjustment to what "the world" is nowadays.
I grew up in a society - in Scotland - which could be described as culturally Christian. In primary school we learned Bible stories, sang hymns, sang the Lord's Prayer (why it was sung escapes me), and had Christian services at the end of term. Most of my classmates' names were shown in the local church vestibule in a list called the Cradle Roll; it puzzled me that (a) the dates shown weren't their birthdays, and (b) my name was missing, until I learned that it was the list of those who had been christened/baptised (whichever you want to call it), and I wasn't there because my Dad, although he attended the local Church of Scotland, was by conviction a Baptist. Whether any of this led to genuine Christian commitment (of those from families who didn't attend church regularly) I cannot say; for myself I feel both an appreciation for it and a concern that it may have acted as an inoculation.
Within that setting there were Christians who lived very "post-liberal" lives: being in secular business or employment but eschewing such worldly evils as cinema, television, dancing and association with people from other church denominations - thus forming an enclosed "colony of heaven".
Therefore, from your description (I haven't read any of the linked articles) I find it hard to see post-liberal theology as a reaction to liberal theology (which you rightly describe as downplaying or denying the supernatural).
Post-liberal politics is perhaps harder to pin down, in that it can take on a variety of shapes. But it has some key themes, largely opposition to diversity (whether that is ethnic, racial or philosophical), which leads fairly easily to nationalism.
So it seems to me that the "liberalisms" to which the theological and political movements are "post", are entirely different things, and while there may be a subjective bridge linking the two, I'm not sure it is one which can bear any great weight of logical scrutiny.
In a British (and probably European) context at least, post-liberal political movements do not have the theological link that appears in the USA, for which I'm glad. (The most evident theological strand in them is opposition to Islam, in much the same way that in past centuries, Catholicism was seen as a political threat.) The thinker who most comes to mind as fitting your political post-liberal depiction is Douglas Murray, who according to Wikipedia has in recent years described himself variously as agnostic or "Christian atheist" (and he's gay). Where British and American trends probably come closest is in the post-liberal politics appealing to those of the population who feel left behind or let down by contemporary politics. To what extent these politicians offer valid solutions rather than scapegoating is a matter of debate.
Apologies for the length of this reply, and for my attempts so process some thoughts on the keyboard!
Be in the world but not of the world,, as said below how did the early church manage ? The light shines brighter in the darkness....
If you're soliciting opinions here's mine:
First of all, I think trying to Christianize our secular society in order to protect ourselves from it's decadence is not going to work. These intolerant Christians view the LGBTQ community as decadent. Where are they going to put all the LGBTQ folks, in camps? Like modern leper colonies?
But more important IMO, if we're going to look to Jesus as our example, where did He go to meet Zacharias? Where did He go to meet with the publicans and sinners? If Christians of an intolerant sort are represented in these situations, they are represented by the Pharisees. To me, either isolating myself from nonbelievers or isolating them from me exposes me as having a weak relationship with the Holy Spirit. I'm being kept by the Holy Spirit as much as I choose to be. Where sin abounds, grace much more abounds. The first generation of believers could handle the decadence of Rome and emerge as overcomers. MAGA Christianity, if there is such a thing, is too inbred and fragile.
Speaking from my own experience, I think there is something to this thesis. I have been very much influenced by Hauerwas, I've read the Ben Op, and have dabbled with Radical Orthodoxy. For a long time I've thought of the Church along Hauerwasian lines, as a counter polis, etc. Of course in Hauerwas you do have a kind of post-liberalism and I've taken that (as I think he does) as less of a political project than a refusal to let Christian self-identity be understood in liberal terms. I'm part of a historic Anabaptist tradition and so my people's experience of persecution at the hands Christendom also makes me more friendly to Liberalism. At the same time, I also became aware of critiques of liberalism via the likes of Patrick Deneen, where its liberal politics as such that is blamed for the moral condition of our culture. I personally find that kind of critique pretty persuasive while also finding the "whats the alternative?" question equally pressing.
For me, there was a bit of a different vibe between the 2016 Trump campaign and the 2024 version. In 2016, I would have been very comfortable critiquing Trump and the evangelical alignment in Hauerwasian terms, Christian Nationalism, etc. I remember in 2024, I felt more cross pressure. A purely secular politics feels devoid of energy, nihilistic, and problematic. I've always been a big anti-Trump guy, I think the January 16 stuff should have disqualified him from politics perminantly. At the same time, having read JD Vance's conversion story in the Lamp, I remember feeling like Vance was a candidate that might be able to bring a thoughtful Christian voice. Looking at his list of influences--quite a few post liberal thinkers--I remember feeling like this was a guy shaped very much by the same sources I had been. So I guess I felt some sort of bookish affinity. So I felt slightly more open to seeing what a Trump-Vance presidency would accomplish. The last few years have disabused me of this. Vance now feels to me like a power-hungry sycophant who has done nothing but defend and apologize for everything Trump does. I really believe the gamble he took aligning himself with Trump will cost him politically. The Trump-Vance presidency has been cruel and devoid of Christian charity. I can't see how it's policies have in any way blunted the technological-capitalist machine.
So I guess I can see the argument that Post-liberalism does potentially lead to the politics of MAGA. The connection is nakedly there in some of the guys like Vance. That said, I agree with you that accusing Hauerwas of this is very unfair. In my slight flirtations with Trump-Vance I was aware that I was moving beyond Hauerwas.
I suppose I am still left with a question. I think some of the post-liberals are right that a purely secular politics has exhausted itself. Our culture feels morally bankrupt and very little stands in the way of the onward movement of Capitalism and Technique. What is the politics that can resist these forces and bring hope? Is Hauerwas ultimately correct that the only credible option is the faithful witness of Church? Maybe so. But then we are cast back upon the failures the Church to be the Church.
Richard, I subscribe to Rod Dreher's Substack, and I've been reading him for a long time before that. He has in no way abjured his "Benedict Option" stance, and, rather than taking up Christian Nationalism he has pointedly written against it. He believes people are turning to CN, in part, because of the failures of our institutions and the generalized nihilism of our society, not because CN a good thing. My opinion is that Rod gets too wrapped up in trying to figure out political solutions because of his own personal traumas at the hands of bullies, even though he knows and has stated that the real solutions are not political.
He also did not approve of everything Orban and his government did; he has especially decried the cronyism and corruption that Orban allowed. What was attractive to Dreher about Orban's "illiberalism" was the way Orban used his political power to uphold things the Hungarian people wanted upheld, against the dictates of Brussels' "liberalism" that is anything but the sort of "classical liberalism" upon which the US was founded on the heels of the Enlightenment, a liberalism that is truly tolerant. The things Orban made room for are the kinds of things that simply make sense in terms of social policy. Dreher lived in Budapest for four years, and I believe what he has to say about Orban.
Dana
I think Dreher is slippery on this point. (And I should lay my cards on the table that I'm not of fan of his.) For example, when he writes things like "Orban’s vision for Europe, as a continent of sovereign nations with strong borders, that has meaningfully returned to the Christian faith, is still the correct one." it's clear that he's pivoted away from a BenOp approach (at least as an exclusive approach) to focus upon the nation state becoming Christian. So while he avoids the label "Christian nationalism" his turn from church-to-state illustrates my descriptions over the last two posts.
I've read Dreher a good bit, and I would say this is a fair take. I resonate with him in some ways and differ in others. But your point about Orban/Hungary is apt.
When I started reading your posts, I expected "post-liberal theology" (a term I hadn't heard before) to be something like your own self-described position of "post-progressive". Instead, it appears from your description to be a traditional - indeed old-fashioned - stance of separation from the world, with some adjustment to what "the world" is nowadays.
I grew up in a society - in Scotland - which could be described as culturally Christian. In primary school we learned Bible stories, sang hymns, sang the Lord's Prayer (why it was sung escapes me), and had Christian services at the end of term. Most of my classmates' names were shown in the local church vestibule in a list called the Cradle Roll; it puzzled me that (a) the dates shown weren't their birthdays, and (b) my name was missing, until I learned that it was the list of those who had been christened/baptised (whichever you want to call it), and I wasn't there because my Dad, although he attended the local Church of Scotland, was by conviction a Baptist. Whether any of this led to genuine Christian commitment (of those from families who didn't attend church regularly) I cannot say; for myself I feel both an appreciation for it and a concern that it may have acted as an inoculation.
Within that setting there were Christians who lived very "post-liberal" lives: being in secular business or employment but eschewing such worldly evils as cinema, television, dancing and association with people from other church denominations - thus forming an enclosed "colony of heaven".
Therefore, from your description (I haven't read any of the linked articles) I find it hard to see post-liberal theology as a reaction to liberal theology (which you rightly describe as downplaying or denying the supernatural).
Post-liberal politics is perhaps harder to pin down, in that it can take on a variety of shapes. But it has some key themes, largely opposition to diversity (whether that is ethnic, racial or philosophical), which leads fairly easily to nationalism.
So it seems to me that the "liberalisms" to which the theological and political movements are "post", are entirely different things, and while there may be a subjective bridge linking the two, I'm not sure it is one which can bear any great weight of logical scrutiny.
In a British (and probably European) context at least, post-liberal political movements do not have the theological link that appears in the USA, for which I'm glad. (The most evident theological strand in them is opposition to Islam, in much the same way that in past centuries, Catholicism was seen as a political threat.) The thinker who most comes to mind as fitting your political post-liberal depiction is Douglas Murray, who according to Wikipedia has in recent years described himself variously as agnostic or "Christian atheist" (and he's gay). Where British and American trends probably come closest is in the post-liberal politics appealing to those of the population who feel left behind or let down by contemporary politics. To what extent these politicians offer valid solutions rather than scapegoating is a matter of debate.
Apologies for the length of this reply, and for my attempts so process some thoughts on the keyboard!
Really fun so far. More, more!
Has Hauerwas weighed in on this? Has anyone asked him for a response? I can't imagine he is sympathetic to the rise of Trump or Christian Nationalism.