I just finished reading James Burnham's Suicide of the West. A hefty book of 306 pages discussing the meaning and destiny of liberalism. Burnham is decidedly anti-liberal in his approach, and makes many good points of critique against liberalism. However, he never definitively articulates a competing worldview in this text. That said, we live in a post-modern world and Northwest Washington is decidedly pro-liberal even among its conservative contingent, especially when compared with my previous residence in Colorado Springs. So what is liberalism?
Let me offer the following quotes from Burnham to answer such a question:
"The logical starting point for liberalism, as for most other ideologies, is a belief about the nature of man...we may assert that liberalism believes man's nature to be not fixed but changing, with an unlimited or at any rate indefinitely large potential for positive(good, favorable, progressive) development." pg. 49-50
"Since there is nothing in essential human nature to block achievement of the good society, the obstacles thereto must be, and are, extrinsic or external...specifically...ignorance...and bad social institutions." pg. 54
These two quotations, decidedly place liberalism within a weltanschauung, a world-view by which all of life is viewed and perceived. This is one of Burnham's strongest points. He argues that the liberal view of humanity is one which forces a certain approach to all of life, namely the unmitigated ability of humanity to solve its own problems. As the author illustrates his statement, another quote from the Americans for Democratic Action will suffice to show that liberalism is a 'religious' worldview:
"Liberalism, as we see it, is a demanding faith [and] the goals of liberalism are affirmative: [not only] the fulfillment of the free individual in a just and responsible society [at home but] a world where all people may share the freedom, abundance, and opportunity which lie within the reach of mankind - a world marked by mutual respect, and by peace." pg. 55
To this end, the liberal needs compulsory, nationalized education, but education of a specific sort, education devoid of other "faiths". To the liberal, "the specific function of education is to overcome ignorance and ignorance is overcome by, and only by, acquiring rational, scientific knowledge" pg. 65 As one example among many offered, Burnham quotes Bertrand Russell:
"The main methods of combating these [three] evils [faced by humanity] are for physical evils, science; for evils of character, [that is, for ignorance], education...; for evils of power, the reform of the political and economic organization of society." pg. 66
This education system produces ideologues, or people who think ideologically. And the danger is that:
"An ideologue - one who thinks ideologically - can't lose. He can't lose because his answer, his interpretation and his attitude have been determined in advance of the particular experience or observation. They are derived from the ideology, and are not subject to the facts." (103)
And this creates a certain kind of arrogance and smugness. A certain ability to relegate others as unrefined, unenlightened, as less than human, thus:
If one accepts Burnham's thesis then to all of this I would suggest that we must respond as Christians, not to the symptoms of liberalism - tolerance, lack of ability to determine the truth, socialized education, etc. but to the core of liberalism, the flawed conception of the nature of humanity as inherently good. The Scriptures are clear, we are fallen humans, inherently evil, self-absorbed and violently opposed to the laws of God. Our problem lies in ourselves, not in a lack of education, science or politico-economic institution. In the words of G.K. Chesterton, what is greatest problem in the world? I am. And I can't change myself, only God can. The fight against liberalism, must begin in reclaiming Christianity's nature of humanity.
Posts
I remember J. Vernon McGee saying "there is no such thing as a 'liberal Christian.' I assume he meant that any liberal belief is oppisite to Christian beliefs. I would disagree with this.
ReplyDeleteAllow me to inject some christianity into your first quote. See if this changes anything.
...(Christian) liberalism believes man's nature to be not fixed but changing (by the work of the Holy Spirit), with an unlimited or at any rate indefinitely large potential for positive(good, favorable, progressive) development (resulting in the comming kingdom of God).
There are some beautiful theologies such as Kuyperianism and Common Grace that allow a liberal Christian to see the world in a constant state of redemption and regeneration.
God's work is not limited. God can work through public education if he wants to. Be careful not to label something as secular, heathen, god-less just because it is not church sanctioned. God works in mysterious ways and there is not 1 square inch that is not his.
Your redefinition of liberal by the insertion of "Christian" has merits for the individual. I would agree that the individual can and does grow and change more into the nature of Christ and therefore has a growing ability to bring good, however, I believe that McGee and Burnham are criticizing a political movement not a Christian's transformation.
ReplyDeleteAs a political movement, liberalism makes certain assumptions about human nature that appear to be at odds with God's Word. I agree that the world is under common grace, and that evil is restrained up to a point, but the liberal wouldn't recognize this or if they did, they wouldn't see the root problem for what it is - sin.
How does the liberal approach sin?
I am not trying to label something and most certainly not trying to give certain things church sanctioning, and you are right, God is mysterious and all the world is his. What I am trying to do is to think and get others to think more about the core underlying assumptions we have about life and ask whether these are devoid of God or not. Such is my goal.