Review: Post-Liberalism, America and the Church, a discussion
Posted By RichC on February 4, 2025
Although I’m not recommending a discussion between Michael Horton, James Wood and David VanDrunen to all Christians, the YouTube conversation between theologians is still interesting for those who are politically active in society and the church. The panelists explored the significance of post-liberalism and how it contrasts with classical liberalism, particularly in relation to Christian theology and the church’s role in society (thanks for sending the YouTube video, Katelyn!).
First, post-liberalism, as the name suggests, is a movement that critiques and seeks to move beyond the liberal order that has defined much of Western thought since the Age of Enlightenment. While liberalism has traditionally emphasized individual rights, free markets, and democratic institutions, post-liberal thought questions whether these principles are sufficient for sustaining a morally and culturally cohesive society.
For many proponents of post-liberalism, liberalism’s emphasis on individual autonomy has led to cultural fragmentation and weakened social institutions, particularly the church and family. This critique is shared by both secular and Christian thinkers who believe that liberalism’s assumptions about human nature and society are inadequate for addressing deeper moral and communal needs.
During the discussion, Michael Horton and James Wood examined these critiques, acknowledging that while liberalism has provided certain freedoms and protections, it has also fostered a society increasingly detached from transcendent moral foundations.
The conversation then turned to how Christian theology intersects with post-liberal thought. David VanDrunen, a proponent of the Two Kingdoms Doctrine, expressed concerns about certain forms of post-liberalism that might push Christians toward an overly political or authoritarian vision of the state. The Two Kingdoms Doctrine holds that God rules the world through both the civil kingdom (governments and societal institutions) and the spiritual kingdom (the church), and that these should remain distinct.
VanDrunen cautioned against reactionary movements that seek to replace liberalism with a new form of illiberalism, particularly if it results in an overreach of political power in the name of religious or moral authority. He stressed that while Christians should be engaged in culture, they should do so with a clear understanding of the biblical role of the church and the limits of political power.
James Wood, on the other hand, entertained the idea that a more robust form of Christian engagement with the public sphere is necessary, particularly given the increasing hostility of secular liberal institutions toward Christian moral teachings. He argued that the church cannot remain passive in the face of cultural decline and should consider ways to shape institutions beyond the narrow confines of classical liberalism.
Throughout the discussion, the speakers wrestled with the question of whether liberalism is still worth preserving or if it has become fundamentally untenable. Michael Horton acknowledged the flaws in modern liberalism but argued that any alternative must avoid the dangers of authoritarianism or utopianism. He pointed out that the biblical witness does not necessarily support a full-fledged rejection of liberal principles such as the rule of law, personal freedoms, and political pluralism.
The participants agreed that liberalism alone is insufficient for sustaining a moral and virtuous society. They noted that institutions, traditions, and religious foundations play a crucial role in forming a people capable of using their freedoms wisely. Without these moral and cultural guardrails, liberalism can devolve into radical individualism, relativism, and social fragmentation.
The conversation concluded with reflections on the future of post-liberal thought and what it means for Christians navigating an increasingly post-Christian society. While post-liberalism presents valid critiques of the failures of modern liberalism, there remains significant debate over what should replace it and how Christians should engage in this shifting landscape.
VanDrunen’s Two Kingdoms perspective urges caution, warning against using political means to enforce religious authority, while Wood and Horton recognize the need for Christians to think beyond the assumptions of classical liberalism to preserve moral and social order.
Ultimately, the discussion provided a thought-provoking look at the complexities of post-liberalism and the various ways Christians might respond to the challenges of modernity. It highlighted the importance of balancing political engagement, theological integrity, and institutional wisdom in the pursuit of a just and flourishing society.
My Final Thought
For those interested in political theology, cultural critique and the future of Christianity in the public square, this discussion is thought provoking. It offers an examination of the benefits and limitations of liberalism while raising important questions about how Christians should engage in the contemporary world.
Comments