Hillsdale, Mich. Ever since I have lived, moved, and had my being in conservative circles, I have encountered an unspoken ambivalence about Protestantism. (Truth in advertising: I am a Reformed Protestant, Calvinist for the church-history challenged; worse, I belong to the pint-sized Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Proceed with appropriate grains of salt.) At my first program with the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, I met a female undergraduate from a conservative liberal arts college who told me she was Pentecostal but on her way to converting to Roman Catholicism. Why? “To be a consistent conservative is to be Catholic.” An initial lesson in the corridors of intellectual conservatism was that I, as a Protestant, was an inconsistent conservative.
If readers think I am playing the role of victim, please abandon the thought. I am a big boy and am used to all sorts of disappointments. My parents are dead. My communion is marginal. My books seldom ascend above 300,000 in Amazon rankings. And the teams for which I root (Philadelphia) are without form and void. Life is hard and then you die. Calvinists don’t want to be empowered and affirmed (unless they catch the pietist bug of earnestness).
Associating conservatism (intellectual and political) with Roman Catholicism is not merely the untested assumption of an intellectually ambitious coed. Pat Buchanan recently invoked the link between Rome, conservatism, and the West in a column for American Conservative, “The West Loses Faith.” Among his assertions were the following:
[Quoting Hilaire Belloc], The bad work begun at the Reformation is bearing its final fruit in the dissolution of our ancient doctrines – the very structure of society is dissolving.
To be Catholic is to be orthodox.
Why not follow our separated brethren of the Protestant faiths, and choose what doctrines we wish to believe and what commandments we wish to obey? And how have those churches fared that have accommodated themselves to the world?
To be sure, a regular bi-monthly column by Buchanan cannot flesh out the necessary connections between conservatism and Roman Catholicism to constitute a convincing argument. But Buchanan is not the only example. Brad Gregory’s book, The Unintended Reformation, along with Christian Smith’s petulant How To Go From Being a Good Evangelical to a Committed Catholic echo Buchanan’s point: Protestantism ruined the West by introducing notions like private opinions, state churches, unfettered markets, and culturally accommodated Christianity.
Given this emerging conservative consensus on Protestantism, it may be time (and where better to do it than on the Front Porch with Jason pouring Daiquiris?) to raise a few questions before the cement dries. Do traditional conservatives really want to make religious orthodoxy a test for membership? Do Christian conservatives really want to identify their faith with a particular geographical landmass (as if Jesus only died for the West, a thought that surely would have surprised the Jewish-Christian apostles)? Do intellectual conservatives really want the magisterium to decide who makes it into the conservative canon (as if folks like Roger Scruton, Michael Oakeshott, or Leon Kass need to be inspected by the local bishop before receiving two conservative thumbs up)?
One place to start the conversation is to consider the origins of Protestantism itself in a European setting that was hardly as unified as the romantic notions of Christendom allege (the English and French were not wild about papal supremacy, not to mention the nastiness that attended the Investiture Controversy). Someone could plausibly argue that Protestantism arose in response not simply to the brazen sinfulness of various Renaissance popes, but also as a correction to the Vatican’s grasp on political (as in temporal) power. Can someone say, conciliarism? Aside from the question of whether or not Christ had Unam Sanctam in view when he said his kingdom was not of this world, Francis Oakley’s current trilogy on medieval political theology shows that aspirations for papal supremacy (and infallibility) drew more upon ancient (and pagan) notions of sacral kingship than they did on Christian reflection:
. . . while the Gregorian reformers and their successors had certainly intended to deprive of any sacred aura the kingship of the German emperors, they were not themselves totally unresponsive to the allure of sacral kingship itself. That ancient complex of notions cast a very long shadow across their own ambitions for supremacy in Christian society. Had it not done so, it would be hard to explain how the popes of the High Middle Ages permitted themselves to emerge as full-fledged sacred monarchs in their own right . . . . [O]ver the course of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries the bishops of Rome moved authoritatively to the forefront as the true (or most convincing) successors to the erstwhile Roman emperors.
Then later:
Long, then, before James of Viterbo came to explore during the great standoff between Boniface VIII and Philip IV of France, the full ramifications of understanding the church or Christian commonwealth as a kingdom with the pope as its early king and in matter temporal no less than spiritual, the thirteenth-century popes had begun to close in on something approximating that mode of thinking. Despite the ideological ground yielded earlier on to the Gregorian onslaught, we have seen that a stubborn aura of sacrality continued in subsequent centuries to cling to the temporal monarchs of Europe. By the end of the thirteenth century, however, it had come to be dimmed by the astonishing degree to which the papacy itself, once the great enemy of sacral kingship, had come to conform itself to the lineaments of that archaic phenomenon and to appropriate it for itself so many of the appurtenances attaching to it. (Francis Oakley, The Mortgage of the Past, 171, 184)
Where the contested nature of monarchy (spiritual and temporal) becomes particularly dicey for American conservatives is that we are folks (I thought) who prize limited power and are suspicious of centralized and consolidated authority. Whether I need to be as provocative as to suggest that Protestantism was the outworking in the religious sphere of the doctrine of subsidiarity – that is, let local churches (at least outside Italy) oversee their own affairs rather than being regulated by a foreign pontiff – American conservatives (especially FroPos) do esteem localism, diversity, and freedom in ways that do not exactly accord with older papal claims about universality and singularity. In fact, the tension between the Vatican and the U.S. Roman Catholic church throughout the nineteenth-century that resulted in Americanism being condemned as a heresy by Leo XIII demonstrates that reconciling the politics of a federated republic and the Vatican’s form of government and oversight of Christendom was not so easily accomplished. To be sure, Roman Catholicism received a make-over at Vatican II thanks to the reflections of John Courtney Murray. But I hear that Murray’s reconciliation of the American founders and neo-Thomism is increasingly debatable in certain Roman Catholic sectors.
None of this is to suggest that Protestantism is the consistent outworking of conservatism, or that Protestants and Roman Catholics can’t live together under the intellectual conservative tent (or hang out at the Porch). It is, though, a caution about assumptions that conservatives increasingly make about the faith that binds them and the West together. Is it quite so faithful or so binding?
285 comments
Bradley J. Birzer
Thanks, Father Morris and Trent (great to hear from you, Trent!). I wasn’t forgetting the Eastern Orthodox Church in the least. Given my own love of the East, it would be rather bizarre if I did. If I ever left the RCChurch, it would be toward Orthodoxy or Lutheranism. This is why I stressed “in the West” in the post. Yours, Brad
Bradley J. Birzer
Hi Darryl, thanks for the mention. Just to be clear, while I do consider the Christian church the oldest, continuous institution in the West, I certainly don’t think RCism has a monopoly on Christianity. And, I would argue–as I do in class–that the first 1500 years of the Church are as much a part of current RCism as Protestantism. I even diagram it on the board! Anyway, thanks for the mention.
Fr. John W. Morris
You forgot the Eastern Orthodox Church, which is older and had kept without change the teachings of the ancient undivided Church. We still follow the Fathers and the 7 Ecumenical Council. Rome added additional doctrine to the teachings of the ancient Church such as papal supremacy, indulgences, etc. At the time of the Protestant Reformation, the Protestants threw out the Faith of the ancient Apostolic Church and invented a new form of Christianity, based on the teachings of men like Martin Luther, and John Calvin. The new form of Christianity cannot be reconciled with the Faith of the ancient undivided Church.
Trent Demarest
Wow. Just…wow.
Dr. Birzer, I’m telling you this as a friend — RUN. Insanity’s horse apparently still runs wild in this comment feed. I thought we had beaten it to death seven months ago, but I guess not. Don’t even bother responding to Fr. Morris. Trust me.
RUN!
Also, I hope you’re well. We should catch up via email sometime soon.
Fr. John W. Morris
That is a real mature response. It only proves my point.
Owen Jones
Trying to be a “classical Anglican” is a bit like trying to be a Jacobite. It’s a nice theory but as a practical matter…
Matt Andrews
Fr., you say Anglicans lack common doctrine. Try Richard Hooker for starts. Roman Catholics lack common doctrine in practice. Even on paper there are differences. Each Pope has his own Magisterium and cannot be bound by a previous Pope. Look at the difference between Pius X and Paul V or John Paul II. John XXII taught that the souls of the just do not see the beatific vision until the second coming. His successor Benedict XII rebuked it. There are many many more examples.
Fr. John W. Morris
It is a matter of historic fact that Anglicans do not share a common doctrine. It was deliberately designed with vague doctrinal statements to accommodate as many different opinions as possible. It is called the Elizabethan Settlement and was meant to be a compromise based religion. Historically Anglicanism has had high church, low church and broad church, each of which has its own version of Anglicanism. Today, there are dozens of different groups all claiming to represent classical Anglicanism, but all teaching different beliefs and practices. You can walk a few blocks in New York City or London visiting Episcopal or Anglican Churches and find different religions. The Roman Popes may have different styles and personalities, but they all teach the same basic doctrine. The same cannot be said about Anglicans. Some are almost Roman Catholic. Some are almost Eastern Orthodox. Some are very liberal modernist feminist and can hardly be called Christians. Some are even full fledged Calvinists.
Matt Andrews
To say to be conservative you have to be a Roman Catholic is a flat out lie. Today Roman Catholic Church is one of the most liberal Churches. perhapes not on paper but in practise. Try Classical Anglicanism. Then you can be a real conservative.
Trent
Well, I guess the conversation is over, now. I, for one, am totally convinced now. Let’s all go be Anglicans…
Fr. John W. Morris
Just what is Classical Anglicanism? If you know anything abut Anglicanism, you should know that one thing that Anglicans lack is common doctrine. Anglicanism is based on the Elizabethan Settlement which was a religious compromise designed to avoid specific doctrinal formulations to unite as many people as possible in the English state Church. There are Anglicans who are Calvinists, Anglicans who are very liberal, Anglicans who are almost Roman Catholic and Anglicans who are almost Eastern Orthodox and everything in between. You can get three Anglicans in a room and ask them what Anglicans believe and get 5 different answers.
John Gorentz
Remember in the early days of the Clintons, when President Bill flashed his bible on his way to church, and then climbed into the pulpit to proclaim his crime bill as the will of God? That’s taking God’s name in vain. If there were actual ties between church and state, that sort of thing would be dangerous as well as ridiculous.
As to what Lutherans have to say about Christian monarchy, I imagine they have lots of things to say about it. For all I know, some of them may be worth listening to.
Owen Jones
Christian monarchy is a relic, to be sure, but should not simply be dismissed and a secular constitutional republic should not be simply assumed as the ideal. IMHO!
John Gorentz
“The Church must also speak out clearly on moral and ethical issues, but the Church should stay out of purely secular political matters.”
I would agree with this, but I would not agree that religion and politics should not mix. Separation of church and state, yes. Separation of religion and politics, no. Church and state are institutions. Religion and politics are not necessarily.
Owen Jones
On what basis should there be a separation of Church and state. That may be a necessary state of affairs in a society that has many different religions and no single religious identity, or in a society that is not Christian, but what about a society that is Christian. What would be the argument against having a government with close ties to the Church?
John Gorentz
“What would be the argument against having a government with close ties to the Church?”
That argument would be the 2nd commandment (Lutheran/Catholic numbering system).
Owen Jones
Seriously? You learn something new everyday, I guess. Could you elaborate? What do Lutherans have to say about 1500 years of Christian monarchy, some of which was, in the latter years, Protestant?
Owen Jones
Which gets me back to my original point, which I realize has been dismissed by everyone on this thread, that the underlying problem is an aesthetic crises. The defenders of the modern secular State experience their world differently than an o(O)rthodox Christian. A Christian experiences live in the world as a blessing, not a curse. The deracinated liberal progressive experiences the world as Hell, something that must be destroyed and rebuilt from scratch, or continuously remade in the image of man’s progressivist, utopian fantasies. The vehicle for that re-creation is the State. As the Obama campaign made explicit in the last election, the government is the only thing we all have in common!
I should probably also mention the problem with the libertarian view, which is also a secular progressivist fantasy: that somehow free markets will lead inevitably to an enlightened, rational man in which his efforts to improve himself individually disperse throughout society leading to widespread prosperity and freedom. Consumption is both the means and the end to fulfillment.
American tend to assume that the above are the only two choices, whereas it is entirely possible to have a vision of political order based on virtue and mutual obligations and loyalties.
Owen Jones
God has given us exact instructions on very little. The argument that because God has not given us exact instructions on politics means that the Church, as Church, should have no involvement in politics strikes me as absurd. There are many things that the Bible does not give exact instructions on. If that is the criterion of salvation then we are all doomed.
What we do have is 3,000 years of the history of political order to study from various cultures, up to the present day, and what is obvious is that the political order is always a representation of that society’s experience of and vision of divine order.
And for 1500 years, Christian monarchy was the way in which God was represented in the political order for Christians. Were Christians for 1500 years just stupid until the American Revolution?
If it is dangerous for politics and “religion” to become intertwined, it is even more dangerous to relegate “religion,” i.e. God, to a matter of personal taste that has nothing to do with politics.
The State, as currently constituted, is a clear violation of at least the 1st and the 10th Commandments and that’s how Christians ought to view it. As Burke noted, the modern idea of politics is that the State is all in all. It is founded fairly explicitly on the theory that a society can and should live without God. So God is a personal opinion that inherently contradicts the very purpose of the State and the existence of the State. Therefore any vestige of Christian belief and Christian civilization needs to be expunged from society, either by violence in the Marxist case, or by more subtle methods in the case of liberalism.
So can we please dispense with this nonsense that the Church ought to have nothing to do with politics and honestly address the underlying spiritual disaster that is modern politics. A noted philosopher who was not exactly an Orthodox Christian once described modern politics as demono-maniacal.
Fr. John W. Morris
You are completely misinterpreting what I wrote. Christians should bring their values to the political system. The Church must also speak out clearly on moral and ethical issues, but the Church should stay out of purely secular political matters. When the state crosses the line between religion and politics and begins to promote anti-Christian values, Christians must oppose the leaders of the state and call for a return to Christian moral values while avoiding becoming involved in purely partisan politics.
Owen Jones
I really don’t think have have misinterpreted, Father. Although I am sure I have failed to make my point clear. Politics is about much more than moral values. The role of the Church is more than just holding politicians accountable to its moral values. Most people these days do not even acknowledge the validity of Christian “moral values” (the correct term is virtues, not moral values — moral values is a secularized deformation of the idea of virtue). The dominant view is that Christian virtues are inherently totalitarian. But with the term “moral values,” everyone is quite comfortable with inventing their own.
Is this a consequence of Protestant influence? I’ll leave that an open question.
It seems to me that the question is a very practical one: absent the idea of a Christian realm, what is the proper relationship and attitude of the Church and the individual believer toward the State in the given political reality. The first step would be to expunge secular liberal assumptions from one’s mind, as if that were the only approach to politics.
Fr. John Morris
I do think that a lot of what is wrong with America can be traced back to the Protestant Reformation. One of the principles of the Reformation is that the Church corrupted the message of Christ, thus the rejection of Holy Tradition as found in the consensus of the Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils. Then during the 19th century Protestant Biblical scholars began to question the Bible, itself through the ill conceived “quest for the historical Jesus,” which is built on the assumption that the Gospels are filled with errors, or as Bultmann put it mythology. Once you dispense with the Holy Tradition and the Bible, each individual Christian becomes their own authority on the truth. This leads to the rejection that there are universal and unchanging moral values. This ties into another principle of the Protestant Reformation, which is individual interpretation of the Scriptures, and in the absence of the Scriptures individual interpretation of what is right and wrong on moral issues. Unfortunately, the Reformation also rejected Sacraments and emphasized preaching turning Christianity into a religion of the mind. This led to an excessive respect for “scholarship” that made the major Protestant bodies willing victims of the liberal theology of the late 19 century which turned Christ from a dying and risen savior into a social reformer through the Social Gospel Movement. Add the two and you get modern liberalism, an emphasis on the vain effort to create the Kingdom of God on earth and intense individualism when it comes to morality.
Owen Jones
While I agree with the above for the most part, if one agrees with your premise then one would also have to agree with the statement that much of what is right and good about America is also the result of the Reformation. Because America is a creature of the Reformation so you can in some sense lay both good and bad at its doorstep. One would have to apply the same argument to Russia when it was an Orthodox nation. Or the Eastern Catholic Empire.
But at the risk of sounding like carping, the problem is not simply one of “moral values,” or how a society derives its moral values. I think one has to dig a bit deeper.
John Gorentz
“I believe that it is dangerous to both politics and religion if they become intertwined.” That’s why we have separation of church and state. But religion and politics cannot be separated, for reasons that both you and Owen Jones gave.
Owen Jones
Regarding how the Christian ought to help the poor, vs. the role of the State, St. John Chrysostom has actually given us some detailed instruction.
Owen Jones
And…I should add, the fact that the Church does not offer detailed instructions on politics is not a negation of the relationship, because the Church does not address man’s problems by offering detailed instructions. Yes, the Church has many detailed instructions that have built up over time, but they in and of themselves are not the solution to anything. They are means to an end and it’s the end, the telos, that matters, both in the Church and in politics, and they are inextricably intertwined.
Fr. John W. Morris
I believe that it is dangerous to both politics and religion if they become intertwined. Throughout history, there have been many different political theories, none of them divinely revealed. If a person confuses their personal political views with divine inspiration, it can be a very dangerous thing. I go back to the words of Christ that tell us to render to Caesar that which is Caesar’s and to God that which is God’s.
Roger Conley
Well, Father, I guess I think your two sentence response included more religious insults than my inadvertent error justified. And I bet that a careful study of Solzhenitsyn’s work would help get you to a more sophisticated view of church state relations that is fully in keeping with your tradition.
Fr. John Morris
If found my comments insulting, I certainly did not mean them to be taken as such. The Orthodox view of Church state relations is based on the words of Christ, “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” Matthew 22:21. In technical terms it is called “symphonia,” the idea is that the Church stays out of purely secular matters, while the state respects the place of the Church as the conscience of society. Of course in America, where we have many religions, it has to be modified somewhat. I would argue that the state must deal with purely secular matters, but respect the right of religious groups to teach and practice their beliefs without state interference. As you know, the Obama administration in its health insurance policies violates that principle, by forcing religious institutions to pay for medications and procedures regardless of their religious teachings.
Roger Conley
I was going to say something until I saw how many comments were already here. Catholics view the Reformation as a disaster, because it broke the unity of Christendom. Shouldn’t Protestants think that too, since the Catholic Church was left standing? I think the historical analysis is kind of shallow, and I think that you’ve got to expect some religious polemics from Catholics, which is not quite the same as saying you can’t be conservative. Of course we think it’s easier to come to appropriate political beliefs if you accept Catholic premises. If we think Catholic premises are true we have to believe that. That’s not the same as throwing you off the porch. But, in any event, it would be awfully hard for me to get angry at any Orthodox Presbyterian. I live in SE Pa and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church is, by far, my favorite Protestant denomination and Machen is my favorite Protestant in history. I liked driving past the Orthodox Pres church in Chester & telling my kids that’s where Awana was founded. (Do you guys still do Awana?) One thing I liked about the Orthodox Presbyterians where I lived was that they got to be genuine fundamentalists while not having to go to church in big characterless buildings with great parking lots. I’m going to end with this observation. I think you’ll get further saying Mewman was wrong to say”To be deep in history is to cease being Protestant” than you will by saying he was stupid to say it.
Fr. John W. Morris
The Roman Schism broke the unity of Christendom. Had Rome remained faithful to the Faith of the ancient undivided Church, it would not have allowed the papacy to develop and adopt such doctrines as purgatory that led to the Reformation and the shattering of the unity of Christianity in the West.
Roger Conley
Father, No offense intended, but how is that comment helpful? How do you expect me to respond? Do you really expect me to say something like the following? “Well, if it’s the ‘Roman Schism’ that means it’s the Catholics’ fault and schism is a serious sin, so I better look for some other religion. Which one should I investigate first? This guy’s religion seems to prevent bishops from doing wrong. Maybe I should adopt his?” Or, on the other hand, should I take the comment as made in good faith? Maybe respond by discussing the role played by St Leo and his legates at Chalcedon, discuss the writings of the Fathers, East and West, regarding the See of Peter, discuss the insertion of the Filioque into the liturgy, the events leading up to and following 1054, the Fourth Crusade, the Councils of Lyon and Florence, talk about the opinions of Manuel II Palaiologos, then review various views of purgatory from the Maccabees to the Early Fathers, then up to Trent and then say, for all the above reasons I think I’ll stay Catholic? It seems to me that the response I get from you will be unlikely to justify all that work. And besides, I haven’t really read your other comments, but my brief review indicates that you think a person’s religious opinions have nothing to do with his political conclusions. If I have this right, why are you posting here at all. In short, it seems to me that your comment is conclusory, pejorative and is about a topic other than the one I wrote about. In short I am utterly at a loss as to how to respond to it.
Fr. John W. Morris
I do believe that one can be a faithful Christian and be a political liberal, but that one can also be a faithful Christian and be a political conservative. We need to keep religion out of politics and politics out of religion. I merely responded to a comment that I considered incorrect. I believe that the division between East and West is what shattered Christian unity.
John Gorentz
“We need to keep religion out of politics and politics out of religion.”
As a strong believer in separation of church and state, I question the wisdom of the above statement.
Fr. John W. Morris
Why. Religion deals with spiritual matters, politics deal with secular matters. The two are not the same. Religion gives the believer principles of morality upon which to base their politics, but does not give detailed instructions on the application of those moral principles to secular political issues.
Owen Jones
Body and soul are not the same. But last time I looked they were closely connected. Christianity is not just about principles of morality, it’s about the salvation of sinners. And people don’t base their politics just on principles of morality, or lack thereof. Political order is a symbolization of Divine order. So your vision of Divine order determines your political vision, only it’s not an individual problem. It’s a problem for societies. Societies represent their vision of divinity in and through political symbolisms, political structures. So, for example, monarchy is a very different divine symbolism than democracy with very different theological implications and assumptions.
Politics is always theology by different means. On the pragmatic level there is a lot of room for give and take, of course. But all political problems — the big ones — not the questions of whether we should spend $500 billion or $550 billion on the military — are at root spiritual problems.
Fr. John W. Morris
I still believe that God has not given us exact instructions on secular political matters. For example, a Christian must be concerned for the poor, but how we put that concern into action is subject to interpretation. Some believe that the expansion of the welfare state is a good thing to help the poor. Others, like myself, believe that the welfare state has actually harmed the poor by making them dependent on government and discouraging them to work to take care of themselves.
Owen Jones
One does not have to be a theologian per se to develop an Orthodox political theory. Certainly Solzhenitsyn falls into the category of a great thinker who was Orthodox and who applied an Orthodox aesthetic to the problems of political disorder.
And I think the notion that Orthodox Christianity should stay out of “secular” political theory is just suicidal. Also, it’s not historically accurate to say that Orthodox Christianity has never done that. Also, the axiom to render unto Caesar involved obedience to the ruling political authorities, that is to say, Christ was saying that He did not come into the world as a political revolutionary, which is what the Jews of the day expected a Messiah to be. That phrase cannot be used as an excuse for Orthodox people not to think!
To say that there are no political implications of the Christian God-man relationship almost sounds gnostic to me.
Owen Jones
Locke insisted that Christianity be cleansed of its “cultural accretions,” in other words, the contribution of Greek/Roman culture to its theological and ecclesiastical development.
Owen Jones
Perhaps you think my comment about Weaver is arrogant, like, gee, I’m one of only three or four individuals on the face of the earth who can quote him, aren’t I smart! In fact, it was a lament.
Owen Jones
I quoted St. Theophan earlier to suggest an Orthodox aesthetic on the nature of human freedom. That’s different than a doctrinal statement. I absolutely believe it has political connotations and implications. Most certainly. And I believe that most Americans would violently disagree with it, in part because it is paradoxical in nature and most people would fail to grasp that.
I appreciate the fact that it is simplistic to lump all Protestants together. The Reformation was many things and many movements, including mass nudism!
But it may be helpful to look at a very similar era in the East — the iconoclastic controversy — that lasted 100 years. Orthodoxy got its iconoclastic revolt almost 1,000 years before the Reformation. It was able to deal with it by incorporating the criticism that was good and proper, while rightly labeling iconoclasm as a heresy.
The Reformation, rightly understood, is an iconoclastic movement. It was an aesthetic revolt, not just a doctrinal one. Most Americans pride themselves on being iconoclasts.
But Orthodoxy in America really has little hope of making any solid impression on the society. Iconoclasm is just too deeply ingrained. Which is why Will Herberg said that Orthodoxy doesn’t stand a chance in this culture. Of course, no one knows where history is taking us.
Trent
I’m not dismissive of all such critiques, I’m just skeptical of some of yours in particular because I think they lack a certain amount of nuance. I don’t recall even speaking about Locke in this feed…
…just checked — I haven’t said a word about Locke. With that said, a statement like “Of course Locke eviscerated Christianity” is somewhat absurd.
What I reject is your necessitous linking of “Protestantism” with all of the aforementioned bogeys. It’s sloppy. I do, in fact, appreciate the “criticism of the intellectual fraud that liberalism is” and am well-familiar with the philosophy and the intellectual history, having read it myself. As I think I mentioned before — and since we’re all being autobiographical — I, too, encountered it in high school and college. I, too, inquired into Eastern Christianity, but was compelled to regard it differently — its aesthetic, its theology, &c. So it seems you and I have similar trajectories.
I’m still not sure where you’re finding my “complete dismissiveness.”
Right. Except the three or four of you that are left who still vibe to the “paradigm of essences toward which the phenomenology of the world is in a continuing state of approximation.” I suppose that those who can’t explain the technicalities of Beethoven’s 5th Symphony aren’t actually enjoying the music, either.
Owen Jones
I do not believe that you have to be EO to be a conservative, culturally or politically. But since I do believe that the kind of issues attempting to be discussed and debated here and elsewhere about the political culture are essentially aesthetic in nature, then being EO is very helpful in that regard. However, with that said, while Trent is completely dismissive of traditionalist conservative and philosophical critiques of Descartes, Locke, the non-conformists, the Enlightenment Philosophes, the fact remains that there is substantial intellectual criticism of the intellectual fraud that liberalism is, and none of it was conducted by EO theologians, philosophers or political thinkers. I read a lot of this critique when in high school and college when I had never heard of the Orthodox Church. I ran across these works of criticism by being involved in a conservative student campus organization. One of the works was Pursuit of Millennium by Norman Cohn, probably not an EO author!
Fr. John Morris
If you mean criticism of political liberalism written by Orthodox theologians, you will not find it. We take Christ command to render to Caesar that which is Caesar’s and stay out of secular political theory. I am personally politically conservative, but do not speak about political issues from the altar. However, in modern American politics liberalism has been identified with moral issues that Orthodox do oppose such as abortion and same sex marriage. Because these are moral issues, we do address them in writing and from the altar.
Trent
I am quite familiar with Eastern Orthodox theology already, thank you. I do not need a summary. The problem is not my lack of familiarity with your theology, but your lack of familiarity with mine, apparently.
What you have articulated, supposedly in contradistinction to the Lutheran position, is actually, well…the Lutheran position. That justification is a mere “legal fiction” is not “the traditional Lutheran classification.” You’re just wrong on that count. No other way to say it.
Just as you differed from Mr. Jones regarding free will, so also I think many other Orthodox Christians would demur from this statement of yours. Most Orthodox, I feel, would say that the sinner is not just until he is holy, i.e, is not justified truly until he is sanctified wholly, i.e., until he has achieved complete theosis. In any event, I think that, depending on what you mean by this statement, it is frankly more amenable to Lutheran soteriology than to that of the Eastern Orthodox, with the difference being that a Lutheran would affirm that a man, having been justified by grace through faith (cf. Romans v, 1), is truly in a state of grace, pardoned of all sin, and has the righteousness of Christ — in a word, is “saved” where he stands, lacks nothing, and would enter Paradise were he to die, just like the penitent thief. The Eastern Orthodox would never say anything so affirmative.
There you go again. This is so tiresome. “Protestants” this; “Protestantism” that. There is no such thing as the Protestant Reformation. There you go lumping again. Lutherans (who, frankly, are no more Protestant than you) have an understanding of Church that does not rely on a sequence of events in the sixteenth century. We, too, claim the catholic tradition dating back to the apostles, as well as the Old Testament, as normative of our doctrine.
As an aside, your tone is incredibly condescending. Do you usually enter conversations assuming that your interlocutors are ignoramuses? Is this just part of the “I’m a convert-to-Orthodoxy” shtick? Because I encounter it a lot.
Hmmm. So it is to Lutherans. However, you’ll have a harder time convincing Lutherans that the distinction between presbyteros and episkopos, priest and bishop, is of divine rather than human ordinance. Because it’s not. Our bishops and priests have as much claim to apostolic succession as do yours.
For the love of God, literally, what Protestant doctrine of the invisible church? I don’t believe that the Church is invisible. There you go again, thrashing a canard. It is abundantly clear that you used to be an Episcopalian.
OK, then that means that the Eastern Orthodox Church is not fully Church, since they are not in communion with the bishops of Western Christendom who are “in Apostolic Succession,” even if we were only to consider the bishops of the Roman Church.
Everyone, just remember from now on that every time Fr. Morris uses the word “Protestants,” he may as well use the word “redheads,” as it would be about as helpful and accurate to do so. Likewise, whenever he uses the word “Protestantism,” you could easily substitute the phrase “Loony-Tunes” and have it do a similar amount of explanatory work.
Well, Lutherans do practice Chrismation, and we also believe that the Eucharistic bread and wine are the actual Body and Blood of Christ. We wouldn’t insist on Chrismation as necessary, however — we would affirm it as salutary, but would never say that one’s entry into the Church was incomplete or deficient if one were to lack it. And neither would Jesus (cf. St. Mark xvi, 16).
I’m just glad that you’re saying all of this. It’s better to have all of it out in the open. However, I must say that I prefer what seemed to be a tacit acknowledgement of the part of Owen Jones that, yes, his position is that it really does come down to being an Eastern Orthodox Christian in order to be a consistent, true, really real conservative — all else being mere approximation. This, at least, is a consistent position.
Owen Jones
As much as I would delight in such a thing happening on a mass scale, not very likely. And I doubt very seriously that such a pitch is going to work very well with the vast majority of American Protestants. Oh, and by the way, if a million Protestants wanted to become Orthodox overnight, it will be, as a practical matter, virtually impossible for them to do so.
Fr. John W. Morris
A million American Protestants could not become Orthodox over night. It takes time to convert to Orthodoxy. A potential convert must receive instruction and participate in the life of the Church for at least 6 months to a year before they are ready to join our Church.
Owen Jones
Were it only that simple, Father. Or that easy. Politics is always theology by different means. Always. You can’t get away from it. The political realm is always a symbolic representation of the divine realm. In a so-called secularized society and government such as our own, we have simply gone from a transcendent divinity to many immanent divinities.
Fr. John W. Morris
What has happened is that issues like abortion and same sex marriage have blurred the lines between secular politics and religion. The left has embraced moral positions that as an Orthodox Christian I must reject. There is a lot of talk about the religious right, but there is also a religious left represented by Jim Wallis and the National Council of Churches. The Social Gospel movement which developed during the Progressive Era of the late 19th century laid the foundation for the development of the religious left which dominates the mainline Protestant denominations as well as the National Council of Churches. That is why the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese, under which I serve as a priest, withdrew from the National Council of Churches years ago. The religious left treats support for abortion and “full inclusion” of gays including blessing same sex marriage as a part of their doctrine and is allied with the political left. They also consider it a matter of Christian ethics that we must support a welfare system, that I believe has failed by any rational standards. Instead of ending poverty, the federal government has actually increased poverty by creating several generations of people who know nothing but life on welfare.
Owen Jones
Surprisingly, the Orthodox Church does not have a term for “free will” and really no tradition that I am aware of that specifically addresses free will as such. Certainly not a dogma on the subject. There is “will” which is part of our created nature, and there is volition, which is a process of choosing, which, when the rational intellect, will and desires are in proper harmony and free of delusion, will naturally choose that which is pleasing to God. Salvation therefore is about being restored to created nature. It’s more than that of course. But one cannot understand the Orthodox doctrine on salvation apart from that.
The focus on the role of free will vs. some type of destiny or – pre-destiny — or when and under which condition each one comes into play — seems to me to be mostly a Protestant focus. It strikes me as a bit like Occasionalism in medieval Catholic thought.
In Orthodoxy, freedom and the proper exercise of will, is paradoxical.
Now, what, if anything does this have to do with politics and culture? One of the fundamental problems in our society today is that we have a rights based political system that is not only naive but frankly leads to the kind of nihilism and atomization on the one hand that a person who understands the importance of culture will obviously decry, but it also, ironically, leads to a kind of totalitarianism of the collective will. It’s not surprising since a rights based definition of man and society stems from the same 18th Century romantic ideas that fed into both individualistic liberalism and collectivist totalitarianism. Both are based on the same intellectual premises.
Fr. John W. Morris
I have to disagree with you. Orthodox most certainly do use the term free will. All of the Greek Fathers affirmed free will. There is no dogmatic definition of free will in the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils, because there was no controversy over the issue at the time of the Councils. Actually, all Christians, Eastern and Western, believed in free will until Augustine. Augustine was hardly known in the East and had no impact on the development of Eastern Orthodox theology. However, the West, both Catholic and Protestant theology is highly influenced by Augustine of Hippo. Orthodox consider the 13 Conference of St. John Cassain, which was written as a critique of Augustine’s teachings against free will is a correct expression of our doctrine. Followers of Augustine, both Roman Catholic and Protestant would classify St. John as a semi-pelagian. Later in the correspondence between a group of Lutheran theologians at the University of Tubingen, Patriarch Jeremias II and his theologians rejected the denial of free will found in Lutheran theology. Later, when a effort was made to introduce Calvinism in the East by Cyril Loukaris, the East condemned the rejection of free will as heretical at the Council of Jerusalem Bethlehem in 1672.
Actually, the Eastern Orthodox polity which is that decisions are made by councils can be taken as a model for democratic government. Even a Patriarch, which is the head of an independent national Orthodox Church, lacks absolute authority, but must follow the decisions of the Holy Synod of council of Bishops of his Patriarchate.
Trent
Alright, then — so we can go back even farther in our hagiography of heretics:
America’s liberal essence (the atomization of the body social, the stupid rights-based body politic) is the fault of modernism, which is the fault of Descartes, who was enabled by Luther, who was reacting to the legalism of Western Catholicism, scholasticism, et al (but not in the right way); both Luther and the Western Church were thralls of that confused African bishop, Augustine, who screwed the pooch on free will by departing from the consensus patrum, which only the Eastern Orthodox Church still actually interacts with/participates in.
The Eastern Orthodox are the only real conservatives! Everyone else is an innovator in some way, a liberal — yea, the very opposite of a conservator. What’s the solution? Go East.
…
C’mon, Owen. C’mon, Fr. Morris. Just go ahead and say it. Then we can all go home and let Owen and the two or three other real conservatives in the world…pay each other fawning compliments and enjoy their pedigree?
Fr. John W. Morris
I never wrote that Eastern Orthodox are the only political conservatives. There are Eastern Orthodox who are political liberals. I really do not know whether or not most of the people of my parish are liberals or conservatives, because I steadfastly keep politics out of my parish. In doctrinal issues Eastern Orthodox are certainly conservatives, but politics should be a completely different matter. Unfortunately, in contemporary America politics and religious issues have been mixed up by both sides. The left has adopted positions on moral issues that certainly violate the teachings of my Church, which makes it difficult for me to vote for a liberal.
I do thank that those of the more conservative religious groups like traditional Catholics, Orthodox, and Evangelicals tend more towards conservative political positions than those of the more liberal denominations who tend towards liberal political positions.
Owen Jones
The question at hand is not whether or not Protestants are Orthodox. The question is can they be political/cultural conservatives, or is Protestantism part of the problem — that it somehow leads inevitably to liberalism. At least that is how I understand the question.
Fr. John W. Morris
I think that is best to keep religion and politics separate. There is nothing more dangerous than someone who confuses their political beliefs with divine revelation. Such people create dictorships.
Siarlys Jenkins
One sees the Protestant individualism trough the constant division of Protestantism into hundreds of competing sects. This is especially manifested by the dozens, if not hundreds of completely independent “non-denominational” churches that have no allegiance beyond their own congregation.
What’s wrong with that?
Fr. John W. Morris
If you do not know why the continued division of Protestantism into different sects and “churches” that are completely independent of any higher authority are not bad for Christianity, I doubt that you would understand. Suffice it to say, as we say in the Creed, we believe in “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.” Dozens of independent Protestant sects led by a self-proclaimed preacher are neither One nor are the Holy Catholic or Apostolic.
Trent
There is a difference between psychological free will and theological free will. To have a free will in the first sense is to choose to do things and thus be morally responsible/culpable for one’s actions. I’m not sure if there really is a good definition that all would agree on for what constitutes “theological free will.” With that said, however, a Lutheran would affirm a distinction between the condition of the human will before and after regeneration. Lutheranism and (as far as I know) Calvinism agree insofar as they deny man’s ability to contribute to or “choose” his own salvation. While Luther himself denied that the will was free prior to regeneration, the Lutheran confession does not deny, but rather emphatically affirms, the ability of the regenerate Christian to will and to act freely according to God’s good purpose, as well as his ability to act contrary to the same, even to the point of driving away the Holy Spirit and losing his salvation. Lutherans would say that man does indeed cooperate in his sanctification, in all of the inexactness that such a statement propounds.
It seems that these distinctions — between psychological and theological free will, and between the disparate conditions of the human will, i.e., before and after regeneration — have been ignored in the foregoing comments, or perhaps they have been simply denied. The denial would make more sense, I suppose, since our EO commenters do not make a distinction between justification and sanctification. Given this, it would make sense that they would not acknowledge a distinction in the condition of the human will before and after regeneration.
This leads to my last point (for now, anyway):
I’ve been silent in this thread for a few weeks now, or for a time that seems like a few weeks. During the time in which I’ve just been reading the jib-jab, I’ve noticed a few propensities. One propensity (apparently among a small cadré of EOs) is to speak in these vague generalities about this supposed thing called “Protestantism,” as though it were a discrete theo-philosophical entity. This is either rhetorically ironic or just plain ignorant, since it is alleged by the same that there is no catholicity of confession among “Protestants.” If this is so, why do you continue to mishmash all “Protestants” into one clump which bears all of the particular vices of your least favorite theological camp (apparently Calvinism) yet none of the general virtues evinced by the 16C. gnesio-confessional churches? Frankly, as a confessional Lutheran, I’m most interested in your critique of how the churches of the Augsburg Confession have anything to do with the hackneyed abstractions “Protestantism” and “Protestantism.” And you’ll have to do better than “Luther was a dirty Ockhamist.” As Dr. Hart has noted, the original Ockhamist — Bill of Ockham — was a papist. As an aside, we are there Thomists, but no Williamists?
Also, Fr. Morris, you’re setting forth pure assertion when you say that “[d]ozens of independent Protestant sects led by a self-proclaimed preacher are neither One nor are the Holy Catholic or Apostolic.” Again, you’re just trotting out a thesis without supporting it. It’s circular. You haven’t defined any of your terms. You’re just using them as bludgeons.
While I, too, find the tendency of Protestant churches which you described to be problematic, you’re being a bit presumptuous when you say that this ultimately divides the Body of Christ. Perhaps in your eyes, but you’re not God. That is tantamount to saying that all Protestant baptisms are invalid. But the apostolic scriptures, the patristic tradition, and the conciliar consensus is against you on this one.
Apparently the efficient cause of the unity of the Church is not the work of man, but rather the work of the Holy Spirit, Who is granted in baptism. Could the visible unity of the Church be “better”? Sure. But the wounded Body of Christ is still the Body of Christ. Again, the Rt. Rev. Charles C. Grafton says it well: “The Church, because She is the Bride of Christ, must in Her collective entity repeat the life of Her Lord. She must be betrayed, rejected, crucified, ere She passes to Her risen life.”
I can’t adequately speak to all of what has been said, but perhaps this will get the ball rolling.
Fr. John W. Morris
You have brought up some very controversial subjects, in order to honestly answer you, I am forced to make some rather blunt statements that you will probably find offensive. But out of respect for you, I will give you honest answers.
Having spent many years as a part of the Orthodox delegation to the North American Orthodox Lutheran Orthodox Ecumenical Dialogue, I am quite familiar with Lutheranism. To begin with one major difference between Lutherans and Orthodox is that we do not accept the Augustinian doctrine of original sin. Thus we do not believe in inherited guilt or total depravity. Instead, we believe that we inherit the consequences of Adam’s sin, which is mortality, not guilt. We are born corrupt, but not totally corrupt. Thus even before regeneration, we have free will and can accept or reject God’s offer of the gift of salvation. Thus, Orthodox would not agree with Luther’s “Bondage of the Will.”
It is not quite correct that we do not make a distinction between justification and sanctification. It is more correct that we do not see them as two completely separate aspects of salvation. Instead, we believe that to be real, justification must lead to sanctification. Thus we cannot accept the traditional Lutheran classification of justification as a “legal fiction,” because God not only declares the believer righteous, through justification, He also makes him or her righteous, through sanctification. Thus justification is the beginning of sanctification.
Protestants and Orthodox Christians have a different definition of what it means for a community to be a Church in the fullest sense of the word. Here it is important to remember that Eastern Orthodoxy developed its understanding of Church long before the Protestant Reformation. Please remember that we did not develop our beliefs to insult Protestants. To us the Church is made a reality during the Eucharist presided over by a Bishop in Apostolic Succession in communion with the other Bishops in Apostolic Succession. This concept of Church can be found in the writings of St.Ignatius of Antioch, who at the beginning of the 2nd Century was the first to use the word “Catholic” to describe the Church. Thus, we do not accept the Protestant doctrine of the invisible church. I believe that those congregations who are not under a Bishop in Apostolic Succession in Communion with the other Bishops in Apostolic Succession are not fully Church in the sense that an Orthodox Church is Church. Thus we have a very different definition of Church than the “individual church” of Protestantism. Thus to me the independent bodies, of which there are many in the South lack essential attributes of what it means to be Church in the fullest sense of the word. To summarize when Orthodox Christians speak of The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, we mean The Eastern Orthodox Church.
Since you brought it up, I will mention another rather unpleasant subject. If you read St. Cyprian of Carthage’s “On the Unity of the Catholic Church,” you will see that your statement that the patristric tradition would not be in agreement with your statement that all Protestant Baptisms are valid. For one thing Orthodox consider Baptism one part of the entry rite into the Church, that includes not only Baptism but Chrismation (Confirmation using oil consecrated by a Bishop in Apostolic Succession) and finally Communion, which we believe is the actual Body and Blood of Christ. Thus according to Orthodox doctrine Baptism without Chrismation and Communion is incomplete. Some Orthodox would receive a Protestant through Baptism followed by Chrismation and Communion, others, probably most, would treat the Protestant Baptism as incomplete and receive a Protestant through Chrismation and Communion.
I hope that I have respectfully answered your questions. I have meant no offense, but believe that you deserve honest answers to your questions.
Owen Jones
The problem is that people will say they believe in free will and defend it and yet still hold contradictory views. If you ask them if they believe in free will, they will say yes.
Fr. John W. Morris
You have obviously never spoken with a Calvinist. Calvinism which steadfastly denies free will, is, perhaps, the fastest growing movement among American Protestants.
Slumlord
Chris Travers
Truth is understood relative to the observer, but truth is also independent of the observer. The aim of all understanding is in being of congruence with it. Fortunately, our understanding can be tested, to a degree, by seeing how it conflicts with other facts. The truth being a seamless garment of non-contradiction.
It’s true that the Protestant approach to truth is more individualistic, but none the less through individual efforts the Protestant can arrive at the same truths as derived by collegiate Catholicism. With regard to the Catholic deference to tradition, I don’t think that Catholics defer out of a sense of respect to the past, rather, there deference to tradition is because the doctrines taught are true.
Personally, I don’t think Protestantism per se promotes social atomisation, rather, poor thinkers, operating within a Protestant context, are liable to come to conclusions which promote radical individuality.
Fr. John W. Morris
One sees the Protestant individualism trough the constant division of Protestantism into hundreds of competing sects. This is especially manifested by the dozens, if not hundreds of completely independent “non-denominational” churches that have no allegiance beyond their own congregation.
Owen Jones
Chris, I would put the problem of truth in a different way. It’s not that it is relative to the “interpretor,” but rather contingent on the participator. Truth is something that we participate in. It’s not just a matter of “hermeneutics.”
Owen Jones
I don’t know any Catholic or Protestant who is not going to defend free will. As any half educated Christian knows, we all have to defend free will. The problem lies in whether or not we believe in two (or more) contradictory things at the same time.
The real issue for our time is not free will per se, or the lack thereof, but rather control. Who or what is in control. Ideologies are all grounded in the belief in a human controller, either of the individual or the collective. But we are not in control. Any sound doctrine of free will has to be circumscribed by that dictum.
And with respect, Fr. and others, I don’t believe free will can be the foundation of a sound conservative political philosophy. It think the foundation is the Good, and the Good Life, which is achieved through virtue, and through mutual bonds of obligations, loyalties, most of which do not exist today, which it seems to me, is part of the reason behind this website. Now, there can be no virtue without free will (up to a point — free will is not an absolute by any means), but free will is neither the beginning nor the end, simply a means. A very important one, an absolutely essential one, but still a means.
My conservatism, if you will, is based on Richard Weaver: “a paradigm of essences toward which the phenomenology of the world is in a continuing state of approximation.” I think there are three or four of us left!!!
Fr. John W. Morris
With the exception of a movement called Arminianism which is best represented by those of the Wesleyan tradition most Protestants deny free will. Both Luther and Calvin strongly denied free will. Roman Catholicism is strongly influenced by Augustine who is responsible for the Western tendency to deny free will.
The more that I think about it, I can see the point of the argument that liberalism is a Christian heresy. Karl Marx was raised as a Protestant in a part of Germany where there was a strong Calvinistic influence. He later transformed the denial of free will that he learned during his Calvinistic youth into the theory of economic determinism which also denies free will by arguing that the economic organization of society determines one’s fate. Liberals or progressives as they now call themselves also believe that the society determines one’s life condition. That belief is the root of their idea that we can create a perfect and just society through changing the economic and social organization of society. However as the failure of the welfare system should have shown, a bad society does not produce bad people, but bad people produce a bad society.
Owen Jones
Sounds like a distinction without a difference! Heresy is a functional, descriptive term, not a biased, subjective term. You don’t have to be a Christian to recognize that modern ideologies are Christian heresies, and that their origins lie in earlier, specific Christian heresies.
Fr. John W. Morris
Modern American liberalism of the Obama kind is an outgrowth of the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment was an elitist ideology that taught that the intellectuals could create an ideal society through the use of human reason. It does not work, because human reason is faulty. Obama and his supporters believe that they are more qualified to run the government than what they consider the ignorant common people. They also believe that as the elite they are qualified to tell the rest of us how to live our lives. Finally, they reject the concept of eternally valid moral and spiritual values. I am not sure that it can be considered a Christian heresy because by its nature it rejects traditional Christianity. I suppose that one can argue that it a Christian heresy because its socialism grew from the Social Gospel Movement which was the idea that Christians could the Kingdom of God on earth. Change Kingdom of God to perfect society and you have modern liberalism.
Chris Travers
Owen Jones:
You wrote: “Now, I happen to think that the best, and easiest way to be an orthodox Christian is to be an Orthodox Christian, but with that said, I don’t think you have to be Eastern Orthodox to examine closely the origins of liberalism and see it as a Christian heresy and do whatever you can to expunge the liberal temptation from your mind.”
I don’t use the word “heresy” because I am not a Christian (and in fact follow a fully orthoprax religion). I would respond a little more narrowly in that I see liberalism as a necessary off-shoot of secular humanism. Secular humanism really strikes me, very much as you say, as an attempt to take Christianity, uphold the moral teachings of Jesus as universal and self-evident, and then re-invent Christianity on an atheistic basis. While I agree with your assessment of Locke descriptively speaking, I would also suggest that it is essentially what you get when you take Christian Humanism (of the Orthodox or Catholic varieties) and explore it from a Protestant individualist, belief-centered perspective.
For this reason I have sometimes referred to secular humanism as Christian Atheism, though perhaps Protestant Atheism might be slightly more accurate.
Chris Travers
Shumlord:
I think it is epistemologically unassailable that the truth as understood is relative to the interpreter. It is also unassailable that all knowledge is local. It is also true that Protestantism and Catholicism have different ways of addressing these things. The differences you point to I think are rhetorical rather than social. I think the social differences transform these somewhat. My sense of Catholicism (not being a Catholic) is that the doctrines are more collegially developed and with more deference to tradition than in Protestant circles, where the individual is presumed to have greater authority and the social ties are less. I think that this is what makes Protestantism different (and I say this as a non-Protestant) in that it suggests a sort of personhood independent of society which my sense is that Catholics and Orthodox Christians do not share.
I don’t think this is necessarily a problem. The fact is that society emerges from the interplay of the individual and the collective social structures that surround him or her. One might even say that it arises from individuals repurposing (and being creative within) those structures. What is a problem though is the idea that those social structures and bonds don’t matter, and this is what I think divides the sorts of Protestants which belong from those that don’t.
Fr. John W. Morris
It all depends on the kind of Protestantism. I find Calvinism as rigid, dogmatic and tradition bound as any form of Christianity, especially the hyper-Calvinism that is sweeping through American Evangelicalism.
However, you do make a valid point. I will not speak about Roman Catholicism, but in my own Eastern Orthodox Church we differ from Protestantism in that we do not believe in individual interpretation of the Bible. Instead, we adhere to the way the Bible has been interpreted through history by the Church as an expression of Holy Tradition which certainly includes the Holy Scriptures, but is also expressed by the consensus of the Fathers, the decisions of the seven Ecumenical Councils and the faith of the Church as expressed through its worship as the standard of doctrine. However there is a paradox here. Despite our strong commitment to Holy Tradition and clearly defined doctrine, we differ from the Western tradition, both Catholic and Protestant in that we strongly affirm individual free will. The West, which unlike the East is highly influenced by Augustine of Hippo, has a tendency to deny free will. Calvinism, which seems to be the fastest growing movement among American Protestants denies free will, teaches a doctrine of total depravity, and predestination in which individual free will plays no role in one’s salvation. It would seem to me that the foundation of any sound conservative political philosophy would be individual free will.
John Gorentz
I think it is epistemologically unassailable that the truth as understood is relative to the interpreter.
All it takes to prove this wrong is the existence of one (1) epistemological assailant, right?
B. Will
Being raised between a Presbyterian father (PCUSA) and a Southern Baptist mother, it’s rather odd how I find myself a sort of “Catholic, in a Protestant kind of way,” to paraphrase (or quote?) Newman.
As my (Protestant) pastor once pointed out, the only things that really separate the varied groups of Christianity is specific bits of doctrine and methods of worship. We all worship the same Lord, do we not? And like it or not, all of Christianity can claim the Church Fathers as ancestors. Nobody has a monopoly on this.
That said, what I’ve noticed that weighs on my mind is the propensity of Protestant churches to be co-opted by either excessive sentimental emotionalism, the need to be “relevant,” and/or the infiltration of ideology. As an ex-member of PCUSA (technically I’m still a member but I don’t describe myself as such), I’ve seen the infiltration of all the above, particularly the infiltration of liberalism (Note: the Right-Wing mentality is no better in some of the mega-/tele-churches). The Roman Church has a much lesser problem with these issues. Granted, they are not exempt from dealing with them, but they have the continuous tradition of ~1500 years of dogma, doctrine, and tradition, not to mention the arts, to fall back on. While the Protestant churches (or at least some) have some resources like that (I’m really thinking Kierkegaard, Lewis, and others in the non-Catholic tradition), who besides they can compete with giants like Aquinas, not to mention Chesterton and Urs von Balthasar in the modern age?
Is it impossible for a Protestant to be a traditional conservative? Certainly not-I’m living proof of that. But both sides-RCC and Protest and the rest-have to come to the realization that they’re on the same side and that what means the most to us is not the labels we subscribe ourselves to but the principles we stand for and cherish. Anyone who values the Good, the True, and the Beautiful is a brother in arms to me, be they Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Sympathetic/Thinking Agnostic (Voegelin comes to mind), whatever. Right now we need to focus on preserving what we can from the ultra-radical/progressive/secular/younameit onslaught and worry about doctrinal issues later. God bless!
Your Servant in Christ,
B. Will
Fr. John Morris
I agree that those traditionally minded Christians who still believe in Biblical morality must set aside their doctrinal differences to form a common front to defend our common moral traditions. We have seen a vast cultural shift that has overwhelmed our society. In the past there was a barrier between secular politics and moral and religious issues. However, the left has gone beyond secular matters and used politics to try to impose their rejection of traditional Christian morality on the rest of society.
Owen Jones
One policy would be a constitutional amendment that says that the Federal Government cannot tax persons, only states. 3/4th of the states might go for this, because it would increase the political clout of state legislatures and governors. Instead of lobbying for more federal handouts, they would more likely lobby for lower taxes. It could be a flat tax as well, although more likely the more numerous small states would want to gang up on the big states and tax them more. So be it. Bottom line, less Federal power, more state’s rights.
dgwired
Dave 138,
I’m not a policy guy even though your question was about parts of conservative thought. Wendell Berry does come to mind as someone who is as critical of the corporate right as he may be of the government left. But Berry won’t put a dent in fed. govt. So I would like to see states secede. Wouldn’t we be glad to be free of California and wouldn’t Sacramento do better on its own (rhetorical about the latter)?
Short of that, I like what I have read from Ross Douthan and Reihan Salam’s Grand New Party (even if parts will be dated by now).
Owen Jones
Just reminding folks of what the OT actually says about the institution of government. I would add that too many Christians take the attitude that the Church or the righteous Christian is above politics. It’s true that the NT does not lay out a specific political order. That might have something to do with the fact that part of the NT is written with the expectation of an imminent second coming. At any rate, we do have Christian history to deal with.
For some reason, there are not any great Christian political thinkers. Maybe because there wasn’t a need for one until it was too late! If anyone knows of one, I’m receptive.
Fr. John W. Morris
May I suggest the example of St. Ambrose of Milan, who refused Communion to the Emperor Theodosius I after he ordered a massacre in Thessaloniki? He set the example for Christians to speak out against injustice and immoral acts by the secular authorities.
Siarlys Jenkins
the best form of government is directly under God’s sovereignty with no political power in between God and the people.
But since God has never issued the necessary daily executive orders to run a government, it appears that He in His Infinite Wisdom has no intention of indulging anything of the kind. Thus, ANY government, even one developed by sincere Christians seeking the best form of government, will be considerably less than “directly under God’s sovereignty.” In fact, it will most likely degenerate in to an unholy mess.
Conversely, the congregational form of church governance does not postulate that the Will of God is whatever the congregation votes for. It postulates that the consensus of confessed believers engaged in studying the same Bible under the guidance of the same Holy Spirit will better reflect the will of God than the pronouncements of any Prince of the Church.
John Gorentz
Especially among confessional Lutherans and Presbyterians, “Two Kingdoms” theology lowers the expectations regarding the possibility of permanent earthly community throughout time and space, especially when we’re talking about a larger scale, i.e. the national scale or the global scale.
When I re-read Richard Nation’s book, I’m going to try this on for size as an alternate distinction to separate the agrarian types from the progressives and their schemes to make the world a better place.
Owen Jones
I fear I am on the borderline of carping, but God revealed the ideal form of government to the ancient Israelites: No King, and only a group of wise men and women called judges to resolve internal disputes and to raise an army when threatened from without. That’s because God is sovereign over Israel and they all existed as a people directly under His rule. Then came Kingship, which God anointed, but only in condescension to their sinfulness, then came Christian kingship. Democracy as a form of government, especially mass democracy of the type we have today, would seem to be the antithesis of Christian government.
Owen Jones
Locke’s political and economic theories are derived from his truncated form of Christianity, purged of its “cultural accretions.” His theory was that since we no longer live in the year 300, and society is much different now, we need to remove everything from Christianity that was imposed on it by Greco-Roman thought — i.e. the dogma, the mystical theology, etc., and just focus on Jesus’s moral teachings. That has a political agenda because it was believed that by removing the dogma you remove any incentives for religious wars. You solve the problem of religious wars simply by changing what Christianity is. But what you get as a result is unbelief, or the peculiar American brand of religiosity which is to believe whatever you want to believe because it is strictly a matter of personal taste, so to speak.
What I try to do in my own spiritual and intellectual and moral development is work assiduously to remove any vestiges of liberal thought from my mind, because I see it as fundamentally at odds with Christian faith. You can’t be both. (by liberal I am using the term in the all encompassing sense and not just left-liberal).
Now, I happen to think that the best, and easiest way to be an orthodox Christian is to be an Orthodox Christian, but with that said, I don’t think you have to be Eastern Orthodox to examine closely the origins of liberalism and see it as a Christian heresy and do whatever you can to expunge the liberal temptation from your mind.
John Gorentz
One certainly can accept Locke’s political and economic theories and be a faithful Orthodox Christian. The Church is above politics. Orthodox doctrine does not endorse any particular form of government.
When I had a captive audience (a confirmation class I taught when we were without a pastor) I took the time to show that you could find some basis for claiming Jesus was a socialist, conservative, monarchist, liberal, libertarian, Republican, Democrat — whichever political ideology or political faction you picked, you could find some basis for saying Jesus was one of those. But if you’re lining up Jesus with one of those sides, you’re doing it wrong.
Dave138
Dr. Hart,
I have an honest question. Let me preface by saying that I do not have an advanced degree in theology, economics, or political science and am, at best, and amateur trying to figure out, often unsuccessfully, how to live a Christian life in a confusing age. I too often let my emotions do my thinking for me, and in my post where I mentioned Two Kingdoms theory, I made accusations that took me into territory where I do not really have that much understanding or grounding. Anyway, this evening, I read the First Things 1/2012 review of your book “From Billy Graham to Sarah Palin: Evangelicals and the Betrayal of American Conservatism,” and, if the reviewer is correct in his assessment of your book, I think I initially misunderstood your argument and actually agree with you much more than I thought. I don’t think I’m violating copyright if I keep my quoting to a few sentences, so I’ll note that I was particularly struck by this passage near the end of the review:
But, ironically, their embrace of the power of the liberal state to further their conservative concerns has worked against them. Evangelicals, in keeping with their penchant for sweeping reform and their tendency to look past the Church to America, took naturally to the grand political strategies of the nascent religious right.This was, Hart insists, in large part a devil’s bargain. The expansion of the modern liberal state and the free market has come at the expense of mediating institutions, communities, and distinctive traditions and values (Hylden 2012).
I agree that, in expanding the power of the state, even if their intentions were good, Evangelicals may have helped to harm many of those mediating institutions we readers of FPR hold dear. I think I previously misread you as arguing for a return to a sort of quietism which would leave the wealthy and powerful unrestrained to do their worst, decimating communities and families in the process. However, I think I’m beginning to understand the arguments of political conservatism, checks-and-balances, etc. as a restraining force necessary in a fallen world.
However, finally getting to my question– if conservatism, as you define it, is designed to reign in the leviathan of centralized state power, in the age of ever increasing multinational corporate power, what is there to reign in the ability of powerful private interests, in the free market, to become a sort of government (unelected, at that) in and of themselves and to curtail the freedom of the little guy and even his ability to compete within the market? If the “military industrial complex” has two sides, while many of the mainstream, Republican conservatives I meet are very suspicious of and interested in curtailing the government side, is there a mechanism within conservative thought for curtailing the power of the private sector? I am familiar with Catholic Distributist theories, and I must admit they are partially what drew me here, but what might be a Protestant, conservative answer? I hope my convoluted writing style doesn’t obscure my question too much and that you will take it in the spirit of honest inquiry.
Owen Jones
There is a big difference Father between Christians accommodating themselves to a political system that is secular and hostile, and Christians formulating a theory of politics that is consistent with the Christian vision, realizing that it is always going to be very imperfect. Biblically speaking, the best form of government is directly under God’s sovereignty with no political power in between God and the people. But we know that that didn’t last very long!
A polity based on obedience, mutual loyalties and obligations, with virtue as the standard, is a very different one than that which is based on nihilistic ideas.
BTW, a conservative in 1776 would be fighting on behalf of the rights of the Crown against the limousine liberals.
Owen Jones
Of course Locke eviscerated Christianity.
Fr. John Morris
God has not revealed the perfect form of government to us. However, any form of government will be bad if the people do not demand righteous leaders. St. Ambrose refused Communion to Emperor Theodosius after he was responsible for a massacre in Thessaloniki. Regardless of the form of government, the Church must stand up to the state when its leaders fail to follow God’s moral law. Unfortunately in America, the mainline Protestant Churches have failed in this obligation, but instead support the rejection of righteousness by our government. The Episcopalians rang the bells of their cathedral in Washington to celebrate the rejection of the God ordained definition of marriage by our Supreme Court. I understand that other Protestant communities joined in the rejoicing at the anti-Christian decision of our highest court.
Siarlys Jenkins
Our progressives are elitists who believe that the common people are too stupid to know what is best for them.
Liberals always have been. When conservatives abandoned noblesse oblige and started enclosing the commons while evicting superfluous tenantry, liberals offered a patronizing concern for the poor and offered them jobs in factories, but certainly considered the common people too stupid to know what is best for them. That’s why common people formed unions and labor parties.
My argument is not that you cannot embrace Lockean liberalism in the political economic sphere and still be an Orthodox Christian
If true, then I probably cannot be an Orthodox Christian. Fortunately, there are many other ways to be Christian.
Fr. John Morris
One certainly can accept Locke’s political and economic theories and be a faithful Orthodox Christian. The Church is above politics. Orthodox doctrine does not endorse any particular form of government. In a monarchy, we pray for the monarch. In the U.S. we pray the President of the United States. All political systems are man made and as such are always subject to human frailties and imperfection. Just as there have been good monarchs and bad monarchs, there have been good presidents and bad presidents.
Fr. John Morris
St Theophan the Reculse was writing about spiritual mattters, not the political organization of the state. Despite the accusations of Western historians, the Orthodox Church never accepted Casearopapism. Instead, the Orthodox view of church state relatios is “symphonia”which is based on the words of Christ, “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s “ The ideal was that the state should be supreme in purely secular matters, but that the Church should be supreme in spiritual matters and act as the conscience of society. Despite the propaganda of postmodernists, who believe that there are no eternally true moral values, the founders of America did believe that religion is necessary to provide a moral foundation for society. Until recently, despite the religious diversity of American society, there was a consensus of moral values and a shared concept of right and wrong. We have lost that and are now descending into moral anarchy. We also have lost the concept that religious people have a right to speak on moral issues and replaced it with the idea that religion is private and belongs only within the four walls of the church building. Most of the large Protestant denominations have gone even further and have allowed the secular culture to intrude into spiritual and moral matters and instead of fulfilling the prophetic role to call society to righteousness have changed their beliefs to conform to the values of the society.
Dave138
I mean “everyone face HIM,” not “every face HIM.”
Dave138
“During the same time France kept its monarchy, which bankrupt the country and led to the excesses of the French Revolution.”
Although France, at this time, could hardly be considered a traditional Catholic monarchy. This was the time of the Gallican Church. The French monarchs had basically done almost the same thing as Henry VIII, only without officially separating. Louis XIV, the “Sun King,” during the Mass, had every face HIM. And, as for the Romanovs, that really is a pretty good example, as, politically, the “Caesaropapist” model led, in many areas, to what was essentially a permanent version of the Gallican Church, with monarchs appointing and deposing bishops and patriarchs at will.
Fr. John Morris
The Russian Orthodox Church after Peter the Great cannot be taken an a good example of the true Orthodox doctrine of the relations between church and state. The canons of the Ecumenical Councils never gave control over the Church to the state. Peter did not follow Orthodox canon law when he reorganized the Russian Church, but instead followed the example that he had seen in Protestant Europe, especially the Swedish model of a state church.
Owen Jones
St Theophan the Recluse on the cooperation of our freedom with God.
Quote
“The goal of human freedom is not in freedom itself, nor it is in man, but in God. By giving man freedom, God has yielded to man a piece of His Divine authority, but with the intention that man himself would voluntarily bring it as a sacrifice to God, a most perfect offering. “
Quote
“The condition for this indwelling and reigning of God in us,
or the acceptance of His acting in everything, is the renunciation of our own
freedom. A free creature, according to his consciousness and determination,
acts from his own self, but this should not be so. In the kingdom of God there
should not be anyone acting from himself; God should be acting in everything.
This cannot happen as long as freedom stands for itself — it denies and turns
away God’s power. This stubborn resistance to God’s power will only cease when
our free, or self-acting, individual will and activity fall down before Him;
when we pronounce the resolute prayer: “Do Thou, O Lord, do in me as Thou
wilt, for I am blind and weak.”
Dave138
“I am an Orthodox Christian and see no conflict between Orthodox doctrine and the political theories of John Locke. Orthodox dogma deals with things spiritual. Political theory deals with things of this world.”
Perhaps this is a place where at least one form of Protestantism may indeed then be useful. Francis Schaeffer discussed how the modern secular state continued to allow a limited place for religion by shoving it off into what he called the “upper story”– essentially, you can have your spiritual beliefs in the private sphere as long as they do not bleed into the public sphere, which is to be kept “secular.”
Of course, the elites of business and finance have to love this, as they are provided the freedom to enact their “might makes right” policies without having to worry about such annoyances as the Sermon on the Mount– that’s all for the spiritual realm, the upper story.
However, I think this is where another Protestant, Abraham Kuyper is a useful corrective, as he is known to have expressed, in his most well-known saying, ““There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry, “Mine!” Of course, this is a strand of Reformed theology against which, if I understand correctly, our original author has been regularly arguing, employing Lutheran “Two Kingdom” theology. That’s, of course, and inter-Reformed debate, but still somewhat germane to this discussion, and, interestingly, a point where maybe the Dutch Reformed intersect somewhat with traditional Catholic teachings.
Owen Jones
An interesting take on our topic by Stanley Hauerwas, not exactly a right winger, but I think on point. “The end of Protestantism” is hyperbole of course, but serves its purpose. My own view is that nothing is inevitable.
The issue of course is how you can tell if, and what do you do if your Americanism conflicts with your Christianity.
Owen Jones
I would have to say that, given the initial comment that started this thread — thanks by the way — and all the following comment, that the intellectual stuff behind post-War conservatism is generally generated by Catholics but most of the grunt work is done by Protestants.
Comments are closed.