An entirely different critique of ‘liberal’ Christianity

August 15, 2012Joshua Griffin

Post image for An entirely different critique of ‘liberal’ Christianity

Editors Note: The following is republished from Episcopal News Service at the request of the author 

In the wake of General Convention’s adaptation of liturgy for same-sex blessings, electronland has been abuzz with opinion pieces about the future of mainline Christianity in the United States. The New York Times, in particular, provoked some controversy July 14 with Ross Douthat’s piece “Can Liberal Christianity Be Saved?” in which he ties declining Sunday attendance in the Episcopal Church to the erosion of “traditional” Christianity, as apparently evidenced by our continued recognition of gay and lesbian people as people.

Showing little understanding of historical Anglicanism, Douthat writes that the Episcopal Church “still has priests and bishops, altars and stained-glass windows. But it is flexible to the point of indifference on dogma, friendly to sexual liberation in almost every form, willing to blend Christianity with other faiths, and eager to downplay theology entirely in favor of secular political causes.” The problems with Douthat’s analysis, as put forth here by Diana Butler Bass, range from false causal assumptions and factual inaccuracies, to a lack of understanding about just what Anglicanism is—a nondogmatic tradition of common prayer.

Writing in the Huffington Post, the Rev. Winnie Varghese, of New York City, penned one of the best replies to the Times piece, writing that “liberal and progressive Christians believe…[that] those liberation movements from the 1960s on… were right, and [that] our church should change in response to that revelation.” Rev. Varghese is right: the movement of God is towards the elimination of social domination and toward a leveling of hierarchical categories of human identity—that much is clear in the arc of the Biblical narrative. God’s Spirit, we believe, erodes all formulations that hold some people at the margins so as to benefit the few.

We would do far better if we thought of the church as a movement, not an institution or even a non-profit organization. But we don’t always recognize it when the Spirit moves to challenge and overturn long-standing hierarchies of domination. The Episcopal Church still has a long way to go. “We have been a denomination of privilege,” writes Varghase, “but we are working on that.”

Yet, Douthat’s editorial may be correct in this one regard. If, as Douthat claims, “the Episcopal Church and similar bodies… don’t seem to be offering anything you can’t already get from a purely secular liberalism,” then we have a huge problem on our hands. It’s just an entirely different problem than he has in mind.

In his stunning 2010 book, “The Death of the Liberal Class,” the seminary-trained journalist, Chris Hedges observes that for the most part, the institutions which have been pillars of liberalism, including the media, the university, the arts, the unions, the Democratic party, and the mainline churches have bought into the neoliberal ideology of corporate-capitalism, which revolves around the mythology of growth at the expense of human and nonhuman wellbeing, thriving, and increasingly, life itself.

In a word, political liberals talk a good talk but (just like political conservatives) have sold out people at the bottom and the planet. A splintering of “causes” and the reduction of politics to “issues” has left the liberal class “obsolete” and clinging “to its positions of privilege within liberal institutions.” And “[l]iberal religious institutions,” writes Hedges, “which should concern themselves with justice, embrace a cloying personal piety… and small, self-righteous acts of publicly conspicuous charity.”

If Hedges is correct, then Douthat is also correct about one thing: the Church should split from the secular liberal class. We should split from those who talk a good game but make peace with all manner of corporations whose time has frankly come.

We might start by challenging the power of coal, oil, and gas industries and the big banks that fund them, as has been prophetically suggested by Bill McKibben, a lay-Methodist, in this disturbing new piece in Rolling Stone. Thankfully, resistance of this sort is now official church policy since Resolution B023 on climate justice was adopted by this year’s General Convention.

In theological terms, we are tasked with affirming life in this moment of planetary exhaustion and pervasive social death. Ours are the works of resistance and restoration, of resurrection and reconciliation. Such works require us, always, to undertake some risk.

  • http://cimarronline.blogspot.com/2004/05/paul-munn.html paul munn

    I think the link for the McKibben Rolling Stone piece should be this:
    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-20120719

    • http://www.jesusradicals.com/ Andy A-B

      That is a great article. Depressing, but well done.

  • Josh Thomas

    This is not the Episcopal Church I recognize any more than Douthat’s column was. We offer a great deal that secular liberalism does not, from lively faith and spirituality to great acts of inconspicuous charity and lively opposition to corporate hegemony. Fr. Griffin needs to get out more. Resolution B023 (and similar resolutions, including same-sex marriage) passed because Episcopalians are already challenging the culture of greed and privilege, and have been for quite some time. General Convention doesn’t lead, it follows.

    • Rev. P. Joshua Griffin

      Hi Josh:

      Thanks for your encouragement to get out more. There is always a limit to what one can know or see, so here’s my experience: I’ve spent significant time in parishes in the dioceses of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, California, and Oregon. These are all very socially and nominally politically progressive dioceses, so based on what I have seen I would agree that many Episcopalians are indeed “challenging the culture of greed and privilege.”

      However, we are quite comfortable being part of what Hedges calls “the liberal class.” Structurally (and in much of our thinking) we are still largely wedded to the corporate capitalist infrastructure which is powered (at the moment) by fossil fuel. Providing inconspicuous charity is of the utmost importance, but it’s a different thing than working to change the conditions and structures that make charity necessary. Maybe our charity should be more conspicuous, conspicuous in the way that Occupy Camps around the country sought to provide charity and hospitality so audaciously on the door steps of City Hall (the camps in Oakland and Portland for example) or in the middle of a City’s corporate center (the camps in: NYC, SF, Seattle)…

      There is also a difference between believing in something passively and believing in it actively. Our ethical commitments might be in the right place, but in much, if not most, of the Church we lack an adequate theory/practice of social change. (We know that the current system is not working, but we have a hard time imagining a set of experimental practices which have the potential to work.)

      I think the failure of many within the Church to recognize the prophetic calling of a movement like Occupy Wall Street is a good case in point. This split was dramatized by the work of Bishop George Packard and Fr. John Merz attempting to open up Trinity Wall St’s spare property as an autonomous space, a political safe-haven if you will, for OWS. For more, see: http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/ows/bishop_packard_arrested_at_dua.html
      http://www.episcopalcafe.com/daily/parishes/occupy_wall_street_and_the_epi.php
      As a side note, Episcopalians, I have been told, have had more U.S. presidents than any other denomination. We are a historically state Church (who presided at the recent wedding of the English prince?), so that means we will likely always have a long way to go. (Have you read the Varghese piece I reference, I think it’s quite good.)
      I do think it’s an open question whether GC leads or follows… probably some of both. Take the 2009 repudiation of the Doctrine of Discovery by GC 76, arguably the most important and long overdue act of convention in the history of convention. How many of us really understand the implications of this act of convention? Does convention even understand the implications of it?

      Let’s be honest though, there’s a reason I’m an Episcopalian!

      Peace,
      Griff

      • andarchy

        Here’s a link to a few clips from the Chris Hedges vs Crimethinc debate at SUNY last night.
        http://www.livestream.com/mobilebroadcastnews/video?clipId=pla_8a920b26-fe1c-4c9b-a261-9a0f67dfcf7d

        • ros perot

          oh good I was about to resend the same thing!!!

        • andarchy

          Sorry, that link isn’t as good, here’s a link to the full show.
          http://www.youtube.com/user/HongPong

        • http://www.facebook.com/amos.edward Edward Gillespie Amos

          Great debate. I am a huge Chris Hedges fan and I agree with Hedges. But it was good to hear the more from the other side. I think that the black block is reeling from the strength of Hedges argument. They feel victimized and hurt it seems and call his assessment “uncool”. But the logic of Hedges argument is sound in my mind.

          • andarchy

            I liked it when Hedges tried to explain why he called AIM and the Black Panther Party “parasites.” And this weak explanation came only after he initially tried to deny saying that. To him any group that isn’t non-violent and filing law suits against the US govt is a parasitic blood sucker on his non-violent mass movement agenda.

          • Beavis

            Hedges here is the epitome of white privileged liberal bullshit, gotta tell them colored people the real way of ®evolution.

          • http://www.jesusradicals.com/ Andy A-B

            Hmmm…anybody who doesn’t fit the primitivst party line is just a blind stooge I guess; no need to really listen or hear.

            Hedges was much more nuanced than you characterize him as being. His focus was primarily on state violence anyhow. His point about our ability to reach and and connect with others being shut down through an embrace of “hyper-masculinity” in many ways applies to what I hear you posting as a primitivist, an almost entirely white male phenomenon amongst all its two dozen adherents.

            The fact that he even bothered to sit in on a tiny, nearly irrelevant crimethink session shows a tremendous openness to dialogue and discussion on his part. The contrast between his open-mindedness and willingness to discuss with your primitivist close-minded shut-down of all who see things differently than you, speaks volumes.

          • peaceloveandarchy

            It was actually a State University of New York “session”.

          • http://www.facebook.com/amos.edward Edward Gillespie Amos

            I agree that he should not call those groups “parasites”. But that is how he rolls. Maybe he lack tact and maybe he is wrong sometimes, but his essential analysis and his fire are very important. People need to respond with with argument if they are offended not just hurt feelings. I don’t think he has ill will towards these folks, I just think he disagrees with the approach.

  • Adam Dickson

    Good article. One of the problems of the term “liberal” is that it describes no homogenous, singular group of people within Christianity, and can signify anything from a recognition of non-heterosexual forms of relationship to a critical approach to scripture. I personally try to be careful, then, when applying this term to others. I think what can be said, however, is that whatever we term “liberal” Christianity, its biggest failings include any courage to speak prophetically to the issues of our time. That might sound strange, given liberalism’s emphasis on LGBT issues and social justice, for example, but “prophetic” means more than another social programme, it necessitates a bold and uncompromising proclamation of the one God eternally revealed in Jesus Christ. I know many liberal Christians so concerned about feminism and inclusion (both of which are serious issues which must be taken seriously within the church) that they seem almost equally unconcerned about the evangelical identity of our faith. Many of us have become so concerned about not wanting to offend others that we end up not standing for anything distinctive at all, and that is why, as this article highlights, liberal Christianity by and large seems unable to offer anything which can’t already be obtained from a purely secular liberalism. Evangelical faith shouldn’t have to come at the expense of Christian’s harmony with people of different backgrounds, other faiths and none. It should, however, be able to confront the evil of the world’s sin, systems of death, principalities and powers, without having to forfeit reference to the peaceable Reign of God, and its one true Lord whose name we profess. That, and that alone, is what ought mark Christianity from any other “social programme.”

  • Chris CS (NZ)

    The term liberal has connotations of the 70s God is dead theology
    Postmodern (emergent) theology is liberal on moral issues, ie inclusive and yet very strong on spiritual, i.e. mystery, contemplative prayer, sacrament, symbols, metaphor, imagination and liturgy. So it has heaps to offer over secular liberalism, and over a narrow evangelical expression of faith.

  • Drew Daniels

    Evan Greer’s Love Me, I’m a Liberal! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sGUcKe7j-Q

  • http://www.jesusradicals.com/ Andy A-B

    One person has been posting under multiple aliases trying, seemingly, to make it seem like a great many people agree with him. I am deleting those posts after talking with one of the other mods…Nekeisha.

    Primitivism is a pretty small group of men and apparently some folks are also a little insecure about that fact.

    • andy lewis

      Darn you Andy A-B you’ve seen through my clever disguise… and I would have gotten away with it if it wasn’t for those meddling Mennonites!!

  • Frank

    “he ties declining Sunday attendance in the Episcopal Church to the erosion of “traditional” Christianity, as apparently evidenced by our continued recognition of gay and lesbian people as people.”
    I am probably going to get slammed for saying this, but:
    1. Not supporting gay marriage does not mean one is then treating lebsians and gays as non-people. It simply means that gay relationships do not have the same metaphysical basis as heterosexual ones.
    There is a peculiar humanism at work here – on the one hand people at this site are generally very critical of humanism, at least when it is taken on the macro-scale as the ability of human civilizations to “progress”. However, on the level of individual morality people here have totally bought into the humanism that has polluted the West since the Renaissance – and the idea that we can come up with our own moral systems, superior to those of Revelation. Wrong, our merely human inventions have failed time and time again – gay marriage, or support for gay sexual relations is a human, not divine, idea.
    Life is not Disney World, and it is not about trying to make every person happy all the time, with all desires and biological urges always satisfied – ain’t gonna happen, and never has (and if no one suffered, if we were all rich, fat and happy, we wouldn’t need God (this is why the rich have a hard time making it to heaven)) – what can one say to someone with homosexual urges other than that that is “their cross to bear”? This is not hatred, everyone is supposed to control their sexual urges, people with strong homosexual urges (I think everyone is on a spectrum) have more work here, but thats life.
    Heck, Muhammed said one of the signs of the end times would be men acting like women and vice versa. Now, I know we are not Muslims, and Christians have a long history of seeing Islam as nothing but a Christian heresy, but I firmly believe the Logos takes many forms, the form of Christ, the form of the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita, Buddha, etc. Point is, I see no reason to doubt the Prophet of Islam on this one, much as it may upset modern Westerners who believe they have come up with a superior morality to that of the Bible or Qur’an. (Which is weird, how can people here reject all civilizational progress, yet then turn around and believe they are discovering morals superior to what has been practiced for centuries in the great religions?)
    We have free will (as I am sure no anarchist would dispute!) but free will is not license, as modernists and post-modernists (and paradoxically the primitivists here) seem to think. Our free will is to be used to control our base self-ish desires (desires tied up with the body, like sex) as dictated to us in scriptures for precisely the point of allowing our souls to break free and ascend from this selfish material world on death (or before death for mystics).
    If we believe (as modern psychology does) that being healthy means finding an “outlet” for all desires (like violent video games as an “outlet” for your violent urges) we are not exercising our free will and are living like automata, like insects, completely controlled by the body (karma in India). This is the problem with modern psychology.
    Free will is “control” (a word anarchists probably hate) over ourselves. Oppression to oneself, compassion to others the Jains say.
    I kind of hate to bring this up, because it sounds horribly cliched to me, but nevertheless it is still true that when it comes to homosexual acts we must “hate the sin, not the sinner”.
    ****In another post I said autonomy is an illusion, but this was in relation to the anarchist idea that their may be a problem with worshipping a king-like God. God is not like some human king who came along with an army and asserted control over our village – he created us, and sustains us in each second – we are not our own “sufficient cause” in philosophical terminology – God is our cause. Perhaps saying “autonomy is an illusion” was poor choice of words for that point originally. I also said a Zen Master would laugh at the suggestion that we are autonomous – again, this was pointing to a higher level, the Buddhist idea that ultimately everything is one and “self” is an illusion. Yes, I am qualifying, probably poorly for this point, but that is what Aquinas said to do – really, I made a poor choice of words in the old post.

Previous post:

Next post: