Three Strands of Classical Liberalism

Recently, I have been part of a book study of Patrick J. Deneen’s “Why Liberalism Failed”. Three conversations into Deneen and I find myself continually frustrated by his loose use of the word Liberalism to mean anything and everything corrosive in contemporary culture, ranging from radical libertarianism to deconstructive relativism to unrestrained consumer capitalism. I also find he is quick to demonize liberalism– or rather his version of “liberalism”-- while very reticent to acknowledge the good liberalism has brought, which has never appeared en masse in any large society on earth. Goods such as universal suffrage, modern science, sustained engagement across radically different cultures, and civil rights for all kinds of people historically excluded or diminished across cultures (women, POC, LGBTQ, disabled, etc.). When I decide where to eat at night, or where to work on the weekday, or where to worship on the weekend, I have the choice between dozens of cultures and thousands of different opportunities, all within 15 minutes of my house. And that doesn’t happen without Liberalism. So, in order to balance the ledger, I would like to present my corrective to Deneen, in what I am calling the three strands of Classical Liberalism.

The Psychological function of Theodicy

Over the years, no theological subject has consumed quite as much of my time in sermons and pastoral counseling and teaching and writing as the subject of Theodicy has. Theodicy is the classical problem of how to view evil, suffering, and death in light of the claim that God is real, and God really is good and powerful and wise. It is the question of how to justify this Good God in light of a world filled to the brim with horrific suffering, or at least how to justify us who believe there is such a God. I have written essays about it, made charts detailing it, and reviewed books about it. And almost all of that has been spent in describing the objective state of affairs in the world in light of Theodicy: Is God real or not? Is God good or not?

But I have not spent a whole lot of time talking about how the problems– and “solutions”-- of Theodicy function for those of us who are engaged in this discussion. Here I would like to dive a little deeper into an area I skim the surface of in my longest essay on the Monstrosity of Theodicy:

Evil and things that go Bump in the Night

A Sermon for Halloween based on Ephesians 6.10-18

[10] Be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. [11] Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. [12] For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the forces of evil in the spiritual realms. 

[13] Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. [14] Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of justice in place, [15] and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the good news of peace. 

[16] In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. [17] Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. [18] And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the Lord’s people. 

The Incarnation and divine embodiments

The Truth of the unique top-down Kenosis of God who becomes incarnate in the person of Jesus of Nazareth does not need to be in conflict with the claims of Divinity in other spiritual paths. It can be true that the great Avatars and Bodhisattvas and Gurus and Saints are all bottom-up realizations of humans who experienced that they are one with God and one in God and that God lives through them. And it can still be uniquely true that the central Self of God— the Self who contains and imagines into being all other selves— that this Self has uniquely become a human self in Jesus. The many bottom-up realizations and the one top-down incarnation can all be expressive of the same truth: That the One Love has emptied themself to become many, so that all our many-ness can be realized and gathered up into One Love. The Love incarnate in Jesus is the Archetype of all of us, in whom we all participate, and toward whom we all journey. Just as an Archetype does not contradict copies of varying fidelity and perspective, but rather fulfills them all, so also the Incarnation does not contradict myriad divine embodiments, but rather fulfills them all. 

World Scripture: A Comparative Anthology of Sacred Texts

If you are a Religious Practitioner, Spiritual Person, Student of Theology, or just love understanding how people make sense of the world and their purpose in it, I have a resource for you!

Metric Maladies: The Disease of elevating Quantity over Quality

As Jerry Z. Muller notes in his book "The Tyranny of Metrics", we live in an age of "metric fixation". We use quantitative data to give us the assurance of success (or failure) because it simplifies what can be a bewildering sea of qualitative information and experience. But as helpful as some quantitative data can be at some times, it also can be deceptive. Over-reliance on quantitative data can become a poor replacement for the inherently messy, multi-causal process of discernment. Quantities can be mis-attributed, mis-assigned, and mis-counted to give decision makers a false assurance.

The Entangled Reality of Spirit and Water Baptism

Ever since I began following Jesus in my late teens, I have read about the debate over the nature, efficacy, and relationship between Spirit baptism and Water baptism. Are these two separate events? Are they one event? Does one lead to the other? Does one exclude the other? To unpack this, here are some preliminary definitions and some Scriptural sources they draw on:

Acts and Afterlife, Hope and Gospel

Recently a friend online posted this quote:

"In all of the evangelistic sermons in the Book of Acts, none of them makes an appeal to afterlife issues. If you cannot preach the gospel without an appeal to afterlife issues (heaven and hell), you cannot preach the gospel like the Apostles." --Brian Zahnd

From what I know of Zahnd— and that’s not more than a cursory glance because he has not really piqued my interest— it seems like he is not really into recovering the New Testament Church as part of his project. In fact, from what I can remember, he seems to think the New Testament and Old Testament are problematic in important ways (and on some points I agree). But, if this is the case, why tell anyone to evangelize more like the Apostles did? If the Apostles were fundamentally flawed in several ways, why should we look to them as a template about how to evangelize?

You are a Theophany

Every single person is a theophany. May we all see God’s image in each and every person God puts in our path, and welcome them as we would welcome God. 

Genesis 1.27 So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

Matthew 5.14-16 You are the light of the world. A city built on a hill cannot be hid… Let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father in heaven.

Luke 9.48 Jesus said to them, “Whoever welcomes this child in my name welcomes me, and whoever welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me; for the least among all of you is the greatest.”

The glory of God is humanity fully alive, and human life is the vision of God. (Saint Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies 4.20.7)

You are a theophany, made to shine the Light of Christ to others. So… shine!

Wittgenstein and Hope beyond hope

Recently a friend of mine posted a neat quote by Wittgenstein:

One can imagine an animal angry, fearful, sad, joyful, startled. But hopeful? And why not? A dog believes his master is at the door. But can he also believe that his master will come the day after tomorrow? —And what can he not do here? —How do I do it? — What answer am I supposed to give to this?Can only those hope who can talk? Only those who have mastered the use of language? That is to say, the manifestations of hope are modifications of this complicated form of life. (Ludwig Wittgenstein, “Philosophy of Psychology — a Fragment,” i.)

Provocation on Revisionists, Traditionalists, and Jesus

Revisionists often proclaim Jesus as a radical prophet of the justice of God who overturns Empire, while denying or ignoring Jesus as the Incarnation of God in solidarity with humanity. 

Traditionalists often proclaim Jesus as the Incarnation of God in solidarity with humanity, while denying or ignoring Jesus as a radical prophet of the justice of God who overturns Empire. 

I think the outline of a solution is obvious: Both general trajectories are right in what they affirm and wrong in what they deny. 

Jesus is a radical prophet of the justice of God who overturns Empire BECAUSE Jesus is the Incarnation of God in solidarity with humanity.

The Panentheism of Creation in Christ

Recently a friend online asked me a great question: "Can you tell me why you think (if you do) the creature / Creator distinction is essential to affirm?"

As in many things, the fact of the Incarnation and the paradoxical spirituality that flows from Christ makes it difficult to affirm or deny there is an absolute distinction between Creator and creation. Christianity is full of paradoxes in which two sides must be held in tension for Truth to be encountered: Christ is human AND divine; God is one AND many; Divine Providence AND Free Will; Grace AND Works; etc. One of these paradoxes is that Creation is in God, AND also distinct from God. Here’s the two poles I try to steer between:

Constantine and the Complicated Canon of Scripture

Recently I read a brief apologetics essay that sought to debunk the myth that Emperor Constantine created the Bible at the Council of Nicea in 325 CE. For those who may not know, the myth states that the Bible as we know it today was created and compiled by Constantine's officials and bishops gathered in Nicea. According to the myth, the Council left out certain gospels and texts that did not align with their agenda, and edited the remaining texts to create the version of the Bible that supported their desired religious and political views.

Wisdom after Bulgakov: A Trinitarian Sophiology

I recently had an extended discussion with a couple of friends about the nature of Divine Wisdom, which is called Sophia (in Greek) and Hokhmah (in Hebrew). We find this Divine Wisdom as a feminine co-creator with God in Proverbs 8, and as the Creative Spirit sent by God to create and sustain the world in Wisdom 7. Indeed, Wisdom is strongly correlated as the character trait that is associated with God's Spirit and those indwelt by God's Spirit (cf. Deut. 34.9; Is. 11.2; Dan. 5.11, 14; Wis. 1.6; 7.7, 22; 9.17; Sir. 39.6; Acts 6.3, 10; 1 Cor. 2.4, 13; 12.8; Eph. 1.17). Anytime any person or chain of events is guided by God's will toward God's ends, this is the gift of Wisdom at work gently but persistently influencing things in a Godward direction. Thus, it is God's Spirit who is ultimately active to shape and mold and guide creation to fulfillment in its Creator, as the Spirit strives and suffers with us to bring about the new birth of Creation (cf. Romans 8).

Theses on Protecting the Innocent in Wartime

The following is my attempt to clarify where I stand in this current moment in a way that avoids using political labels, for when someone inevitably asks me:

Wrestling with God across Scripture and Life

Do you feel like you are wrestling with God through the trials and tribulations of life? You are not alone. Following God and being guided by God is not a matter of passive obedience and easy belief, but of passionate engagement and wrestling with God through the worst of life. This is illustrated in the life of Jacob, who wrestled emotionally with the consequences of running from one swindle to the next, endangering himself and his family and leaving a trail of destruction. In the midst of this emotional struggle, he encounters and wrestles with God:

Rejecting the Reconquista for Christ's Mission of Inclusion

Earlier this week I found the Reconquista movement, with its Episcopal version, which details a plan to "re-conquer" historic denominations and take over their property, resources, and reputation with a form of exclusionary Christian faith. In these pages, we find "95 Theses" which are a syncretistic mixture of three strands of incompatible ideas: 

First, there are ancient Creedal beliefs about the Triune God, incarnate in the Lord Jesus Christ, who works through the Holy Spirit to extend the mission and incarnation of Christ through the sacramental community of the Church. 

Second, there are explicitly Reformed or Calvinist or "Evangelical" framings of the Nature of God and of salvation which are historically rejected by most non-Reformed Christians (such as Catholics, Orthodox, and non-Reformed Protestants). 

Third, there are modernist exclusionary stances to reject certain social/racial critiques, political-economic ideas, and gender/sexual identities, while at the same time implicitly or explicitly affirming other modern categories of race, social structure, politics, economics, gender, and sexuality. 

This is to say they do precisely what they accuse others of doing: They use reformed and modern categories to view and mold the Ancient Creedal Faith, rather than interpreting theology and culture through the lens of the Ancient Creeds. 

All is Center: CS Lewis’ vision of the Great Dance

Frequently I have discussions with people who want to de-center humanity from the most important place in the universe, in order to help us realize that we are part of a greater whole as people who live interdependently with the rest of creation. This attempt is noble, because many have misused Scriptures such as Genesis 1 where it tells the first humans they are “made in God’s image” to “be fruitful and multiply and fill the Earth and rule it” along with the creatures who dwell on Earth. A dominionist reading of this can lead to a theological form of “manifest destiny” which makes humans entitled to pillage and pollute creation in order to gratify selfish desires for consumption and domination. 

The Complexity of Love's Simplicity

After posting my last essay, Fr. Kimel has noted that David Bentley Hart affirms Divine Simplicity in many places and "divine simplicity is an expression of negative theology. It doesn't say anything positive about God; it simply denies that he is composed of parts." And this is absolutely true about Hart, and his recent book "You are Gods" has several mentions of the implications of Divine Simplicity. But the important distinction I would like to make is that in the West, Divine Simplicity is frequently tied to knowledge of evil which determines created beings to be evil. This makes God the cause of evil, because nothing could be otherwise than God has known it and made it to be. 

Hart's concept of Simplicity states almost the exact opposite conclusion: God's Simplicity implies that God will inexorably work good for all beings, even after their choices have led them into bondage to evil. Yet, for Aquinas (and those who follow him) the simplicity and unity of God leads to the inexorable conclusion that God will damn some or most eternally, for God's own glory. So, while I can agree that the concepts of Divine Simplicity as put forward by Aquinas and Hart are similar insofar as they are an apophatic statement of what "God is not" in Godself, they are perfectly opposite as regards what this entails for God as God relates to a created world. At least this is what it seems to me, and it seems that with such a wide difference of effect, therefore one cannot say they are the same concept of Divine Simplicity.

So the major difference I am getting at is that Divine Simplicity is pernicious if it is used as a rationale for why God would will and cause evil in the world, including damning many or most humans eternally. 

Divine Simplicity is simply too simple

Recently the amazing Fr. Aidan Kimel has written an article on how the "free will theodicy" is incompatible with Thomas Aquinas' concept of Divine Omniscience. This "free will" argument is that evil and suffering and death are the consequence of creatures freely choosing to deny and destroy themselves and others, and not because God has directly willed evil to happen. Yet, Aquinas' account of Divine Knowledge would deny this, and posit God as the active cause for all choices and events.