X Close

Thank God for liberalism Our understanding of individual rights is rooted in religion — not a reaction against it

St Paul is the father of humanity's Damascene conversion. Credit: Stefano Bianchetti/Corbis via Getty Images

St Paul is the father of humanity's Damascene conversion. Credit: Stefano Bianchetti/Corbis via Getty Images


January 6, 2021   6 mins

Where did liberalism come from? According to Ian Dunt in his book How To Be A Liberal — which, despite the title, is not a self-help guide —  it started with René Descartes. Dunt’s book is a historical account of how liberal ideas emerged, and the subsequent routes they’ve taken up until the present day. It offers the conventional narrative, shared by many on the Left and Right, that liberal thought is opposed to tradition, authority, and religion.

Liberalism, the story goes, emerged with the dawn of science in seventeenth century Europe. Instead of “finding certainty in god”, Descartes found it “in the individual”. Each human became “not a subsection of our family, or class, or tribe, or religion, or race, or nation,” writes Dunt. “We are individuals. We can think for ourselves. We have a capacity for reason. This was the philosophical truth that emerged from the ruins of the world certainties.” 

Before Descartes came along, we had the Middle Ages — the age of tyranny and enforced superstition. Then these two revolutionary ideas came along in the early modern period of Descartes — that you are an individual and you are capable of reason — and would, Dunt writes, “go on to destroy the old world and create a new one, based on rights, reason, and liberty.” These two ideas are the axioms of liberalism, and in the seventeenth century they were disseminated, along with the affinal values of scepticism, science, democracy, and human rights.

As a piece of narrative, this story is enchanting. Imagine the solitary Descartes, in his damp Dutch bedroom, stumbling across the simple idea that would revolutionise his conformist civilisation: cogito, ergo sum, I think, therefore I am. This is, in fact, how Dunt presents it. But as a historical account of liberalism, it is erroneous. Liberalism didn’t emerge as a revolt against the certainties of Medieval Christianity; its origins lie in Christianity.

If any individual could be said to have conceived liberalism, it would be the father of Christianity, St. Paul, in the first century. As Larry Siedentop writes in his book Inventing the Individual, “Followers of Jesus began to claim his sacrificial life and death amounted to a dramatic intervention in history, a new revelation of God’s will”. This, not Descartes’s epiphany, was the insight that gave rise to the concept of the individual:

Previously in antiquity it was the patriarchal family that had been the agency of immortality. Now, through the story of Jesus, individual moral agency was raised up as providing a unique window into the nature of things, into the experience of grace rather than necessity, a glimpse of something transcending death.

In other words, in antiquity, your sense of self was grounded in the family network you belonged to. Then came the Pauline moral conviction: you had individual agency.

Siedentop’s direct quotation of Paul’s words is striking in their similarity to Dunt’s exaltation of Descartes: “So if anything is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new”. This moral revolution was grounded in the view that we are all equally made in the image of Christ: neither Jew nor greek, slave nor freeman. And the moral universalism implied by this conviction suggests, as Siedentop puts it, there is “a moral agency potentially available to each and everyone, that is, to individuals”. Rights, like identity, used to belong to tribes — now, they belonged to us, as individuals, since we all individually belong to Christ. And so the individual, as we now more or less understand it, was born. And liberalism depends — fundamentally — on the existence of individuals.

Dunt has a habit of presenting historical incidents as clean breaks from the past: Descartes’s discovery; the work of the Leveller philosopher Richard Overton; the French revolution. But it’s worth remembering that these are moments in a gradual evolution of ideas. The effects of epochal events take time to be measured. Siedentop argues, for instance, that although that initial conception of the individual can be traced back to Paul’s moral revolution, it was the canon lawyers of Medieval Europe that really lay the groundwork for our modern conception of liberalism.

The notion of natural law, for example, was rooted in the ancient world, but was revised by Christian moral intuitions to become natural rights. These rights were ascribed to the individual, based on the assumption of underlying moral equality between all persons.

Of course, these principles were not genuinely applied in practice until about five minutes ago in historical time. Nevertheless, as I’ve said, ideas and concepts take their time. As Siedentop puts it:

the pattern by which liberalism and secularism developed from the sixteenth to the nineteenth century resembles nothing so much as the stages through which canon law developed from the twelfth to the fifteenth century…The canonist, so to speak, ‘got there first’.

The person who conceived of the individual was not the embodiment of early modern scepticism but a rambunctious Jew from the 1st century. The people who lay the foundation for modern liberalism were not English Puritan radicals, French Enlightenment libertines, and eccentric Victorians; they were the lawyers and theologians ensconced in the ivory towers of Medieval Europe.

This may seem intuitively strange, but to consider it another way, let’s consult another book published last year: Joseph Henrich’s The Weirdest People in the World. WEIRD stands for western, educated, industrialised, rich, and democratic. It describes, in short, the psychological profile of people from western countries. This profile is unique. As Henrich writes:

Unlike much of the world today, and most people who have ever lived, we WEIRD people are highly individualistic, self-obsessed, control-oriented, and analytical. We focus on ourselves — our attributes, accomplishments, and aspirations — over our relationships and social roles.

This profile is exactly consonant with how Dunt depicts the liberal — not as a subsection of family or tribe, but as an individual. And indeed, the people in WEIRD countries are the most receptive to liberal concepts and beliefs. But reading Henrich’s book shows clearly that what led to us seeing ourselves as individuals, rather than as simply parts of a larger network, was not the innovation of early modern thinkers. Rather, it was a consequence of the marriage and family proposals of Latin Christianity’s early churches.

Throughout much of history, people lived in dense family networks. Your social circle consisted of your cousins and in-laws. The social norms that came about as a result of this, what Henrich calls kin-based institutions, “constrain people from shopping widely for new friends, business partners, or spouses. Instead, they channel people’s investments into a distinct and largely inherited in-group”. The Medieval Catholic Church changed this. Between the first and thirteenth century, they prohibited both marriage to relatives and polygnous marriage; required bride and groom to publicly consent (I do!); and encouraged couples to set up independent households.

By the end of the Middle Ages, well before Descartes burst onto the scene, Europe was already defined by monogamous and nuclear marriages. People married comparatively late, with both men and women marrying in their mid-20s. Many women never married at all — by 30, 15-25% of north-western European women were unmarried, compared to China where the figure was between 1 and 2%. Families were relatively small, and fertility rates relatively low.

This, ultimately, led to WEIRD psychology. Because we were freed from the constraints of our family or tribe, we became more interested in the idea of ourselves as individuals. It was the policies of the Medieval Catholic church, then, that led to the psychological profile which makes us most receptive to liberal beliefs and concepts.

Dunt does concede in one part of his book that “although modern liberalism is overwhelmingly secular, one of its ironies is that the seeds of its growth were planted by Christians making pious protests against Catholicism”. But he doesn’t go far enough. In fact, it’s only “ironic” because Dunt doesn’t recognise that the term ‘secularism’ is in fact profoundly Christian. As Tom Holland writes in his book Dominion, the very words with which we reject religious authority and proclaim individual conscience derive from Christianity itself: “‘Religion’, ‘secular’, ‘atheist’: none of these are neutral. All, though they derive from the classical past, come freighted with the legacy of Christendom. Fail to appreciate this, and the risk is always of anachronism.”

But Dunt, of course, very much wants to stress that liberalism is a radical ideology — perhaps because the word itself has often, in recent years, been characterised as stodgy and slightly embarrassing. Badly dressed centrist dads who revere the EU and Radiohead are liberal. Calling yourself a classical liberal on Twitter is like confessing you wear socks with sandals. Liberalism is also, nowadays, in opposition to populist nationalism and identity politics — beliefs which, in contrast to the popular conception of liberalism, possess a certain vigour.

Dunt’s worry about the anaemic nature of contemporary liberalism is well-founded. So is his wish to present a compelling narrative — the Age of Science against religious tradition and authority. Because narratives are a powerful way of expressing belonging. And liberalism, Dunt stresses, needs to find a better way of articulating belonging, being a part of something greater than the individual self, without sacrificing the underlying principles of liberty and equality.

One way to do that is perhaps, as Siedentop suggests at the end of his book, emphasising that our values are Christian — that we are not simply individuals: we also have a collective custom and a tradition that gives dignity to our individualism. The problem is, a lot of liberals will feel squeamish about this, arguing that our values are universal, not religious. And liberals are meant to be sceptical about tradition.

But the assumption, shared by many of all political or religious beliefs, that these principles belong to all of us is itself a product of our Christian inheritance, which dictates that we all belong in the body of Christ. That we deny this religious inheritance in favour of a vague moral universalism is proof of just how powerful that inheritance is: our intuition is so universalist, we forget it comes from a particular place — that it is WEIRD.

Liberalism is not simply a live-and-let-live philosophy, a radical questioning of tradition and old certainties; it is also a product of the Christian tradition. Which is another way of saying the tradition is itself radical: prior to it, we were not seen as individuals, but merely extensions of a tribe; after it, liberal thought intuitively makes sense to us. The answer to Dunt’s title — How to Be a Liberal — is through absorbing, knowingly or unknowingly, some of the moral assumptions of Christianity.


Tomiwa Owolade is a freelance writer and the author of This is Not America, which is out in paperback in May.

tomowolade

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

150 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Chris Jayne
Chris Jayne
3 years ago

Good piece. Thanks Tomiwa!

Jonathan Oldbuck
Jonathan Oldbuck
3 years ago

Why on earth would anyone read Ian Dunt over any of the authors mentioned? Not to mention Charles Taylor, Anthony Kenny etc. Avoid ‘journalists’, read scholars.

Cassian Young
Cassian Young
3 years ago

Which works by Charles Taylor are you thinking of?

Jim Cooper
Jim Cooper
3 years ago

Bang on Jonathan

cheseeeee222
cheseeeee222
3 years ago

‘Morality’ by Jonathan Sacks (who sadly passed away recently) adds a lot of flavour to this topic (both historic and analytical). I can really recommend reading it. It starts with the intriguing sentence: ‘A free society is a moral accomplishment.’ And it has been a daunting journey for WEIRD to find morality without religion. At the end of the book he offers solutions that lie beyond religion: apart from the commercial contract within the marketplace and the social contract with the state, we can (re)start building communities that act as a covenant. Very insightful. And btw shedding light on today’s malful practice of victimising oneself.

Chris Jayne
Chris Jayne
3 years ago
Reply to  cheseeeee222

Agreed. It’s a great book.

Aaron Kevali
Aaron Kevali
3 years ago
Reply to  cheseeeee222

Communities and cultures and cannot exist without a cult, that is, a shared transcendant belief system encouraging selflessness and deferral of gratification. Even Voltaire didn’t think it was likely, in practice. Communities need a “covenant”, the Latin word for which is “testamentum”. Is there going to be a new New Testament to rebuild our society on? Maybe Islam, God help us.

Spiro Spero
Spiro Spero
3 years ago

Good article. Many thanks. A proviso however vis-a-vis Christianity (the teaching of the Catholic church especially) is that man possesses free will, so as to comform, in freedom, to the will of God, knowable through human reason, sure, but through divine revelation. While our reason is a God-given essential, it is inevitably subject to the limitations of our human nature (original sin). In other words, God (as understood by Jews and Christians) is not a trickster god, who leaves us guessing, but the God of unconditional love, whom man can only love unconditionally in return, through our freedom. Nor is he the God of pure will, pace Calvinism, Islam, etc.

My point is that the Christian can recognize the various Christian origins of modern ‘liberalism’ (individual’s liberty and inherent dignity) while being careful not to become the servant of it. Many of these arguments of late appear to be rearguard defences of liberalism as a late Western socio-economic model by well-meaning Christians who perhaps need to be clearer what they mean by ‘liberalism’ exactly. Much of current liberalism is clearly anything but. Is it ‘anything goes, and to hell everyone and everything else:, or is it I am free to decide to, and do good, evil, etc? If the former, then it is simply an equally erroneous replacement of the divine will to power with the individual’s will to power. Cogito ergo sum therefore is balderdash to a Catholic. If a tree falls in a forest, but I did not see it fall, did it fall? Obviously, says the Catholic.

More pertinent might be to ask what made modern ‘liberalism’ succeed to the point where it is now in fact, in grave danger of itself. Ideas only? I think not. Imho, many liberal (progressive, whatever) ideas have only been socially ‘victorious’ to the degree that they ‘got into bed with’ consumer capitalism. They thrive as long as it does. Perhaps the question modern Christians should be asking themselves needs to be more focused, much as they did in late antique Rome, what exactly of modern liberal thought is worth holding onto, and what is not?

Aaron Kevali
Aaron Kevali
3 years ago
Reply to  Spiro Spero

“modern Christians should be asking themselves… what exactly of modern liberal thought is worth holding onto, and what is not?”

The Cathollic Second Vatican Council was a (largely unsuccessful) attempt to do so.

Spiro Spero
Spiro Spero
3 years ago
Reply to  Aaron Kevali

Early days yet, my friend! The Council of Trent took almost a century (with many politically interfering stops and starts) just to get it’s business finished. Early days. A week is a long time in politics, the church thinks in centuries.

Aaron Kevali
Aaron Kevali
3 years ago
Reply to  Spiro Spero

I see your point, but I would say that councils can be successful (Trent, somewhat), very successful (Nicea), (not really successful) (Florence), or not at all (Lateran IV). Where Vat 2 fits in with all this, time will tell but if after 55 years years we are still reeling, I think it might be time to reassess.

David Sherman
David Sherman
3 years ago

I would disagree with this article. The Christian faith is not about personal choice, but about service of the Kingdom of God and acceptance of Christ-given principles of belief and living. I find immense liberation in my faith but, paradoxically, I cannot just do what I choose.

Claire D
Claire D
3 years ago
Reply to  David Sherman

“I cannot just do what I choose”.

Surely theoretically you can, but your primary choice has been to be a Christian and that includes the commitment to adhere to Christian principles, therefore following on from that comes the not being able to do what we choose. In other words you have chosen ‘not to choose’.

No criticism implied.

Banned User
Banned User
3 years ago
Reply to  David Sherman

Hardly a paradox. You were clearly seeking “liberation from personal responsibility”, and being told what to do by an imaginary autocrat provides you with that “freedom”.

Teo
Teo
3 years ago
Reply to  Banned User

“liberation from personal responsibility”

Gets pretty wild when you choose to make up everything as you go along.

Banned User
Banned User
3 years ago
Reply to  Teo

I was merely paraphrasing David Sherman himself, who tells us he finds “immense liberation” in a faith that is “not about personal choice”.

He finds liberation in forsaking personal choice and instead being told what to do by his religion, i.e., it is liberation from personal responsibility.

Arnold Grutt
Arnold Grutt
3 years ago
Reply to  Banned User

But the decision to adhere to ‘his religion’ is itself a personal choice. And only he can make it.

Banned User
Banned User
3 years ago
Reply to  Arnold Grutt

A personal choice to abrogate personal responsibility, yes.

“Don’t blame me, blame God. I’m just following orders.”

Martin Butler
Martin Butler
3 years ago
Reply to  David Sherman

Yes you do – you can either do what is right or do what is wrong – choice!. You follow your conscience and the commands of God hopefully to do the right thing, but you certainly choose.

Adrian Maxwell
Adrian Maxwell
3 years ago
Reply to  David Sherman

David, my own view is that a necessary element of any faith is the surrender of critical facilities. This a voluntary surrender, an election, although many of my friends who hold a belief say they had no choice. With that declaration, of course, useful debate falls away. On the question of morality, the adherence to the ‘Christian faith’ and the idea that ‘Christ-given principles of belief and living’ triggers two thoughts. Before the advent of Jesus Christ, was there no morality, not a jot of it? Secondly, the isolation of Christianity as the one true way has limited value in rationalising the morality of non Christian peoples. The liberation you enjoy and the paradox you admit, is precisely that of The Dice Man, and I do not intend that as a facetious comment.

chris sullivan
chris sullivan
3 years ago
Reply to  Adrian Maxwell

Contemporary “liberal’ Christianity is free to follow where intelligence might lead as long as it is predicated on ‘love’ ie wanting the best for fellow creatures plus having a sense of a bigger perspective that one needs to be respectful of in terms of that intelleigent search ie we need to be humble in our assessment of our relative knowledge and wisdom. In short a view that every intelligent ‘seeker’ should have and entailing no real narrowness of thought and certainly no giving up of any freewill to some simplistic or naive ideology. In fact I think that not living within the boundaries of the above demonstrates naivety and arrogance actually ??

Brian Villanueva
Brian Villanueva
3 years ago

This article could not be more spot on. The root idea of liberalism is that man is a free individual with rights and responsibilities, first over himself and then in a larger human society. That is a profoundly Judeo-Christian-Islamic idea; 7882fremic above summarizes this well.

I must wonder Colin, why you believe Christians aren’t already on liberalism’s “side”. What do you think saint Paul meant when he said: “in Christ, there is no rich or poor, Jew or Gentile, slave of free”? On the basis of that Biblical idea, it was Christians who essentially abolished slavery in the Western world not once… but twice! (It came back when the Reformation undermined the authority of Medieval papal edicts, only for Protestants to lead the charge against it a second time.)You and John Brown above accuse of the church of insufficient loyalty to “black lives matter.” Do you forget that MLK (a Christian pastor) grounded his interracial appeal in 2 things: the Bible and the Declaration? That was not an accident.

“Civil rights” require the divine; if you’re just a smart ape, you’re governed by the law of the jungle. I would challenge the atheists among you here, try to lay out a valid philosophical argument that arrives at “all men are created equal” but does not begin with something like “let us make Man in our image.”

Tomiwa is correct. The Abrahamaic religions may not fit the modern progressive’s palate, but all 3 have been liberal for thousands of years.

Jeremy Poynton
Jeremy Poynton
3 years ago

Islam? Liberal? Really?

Geoffrey Simon Hicking
Geoffrey Simon Hicking
3 years ago
Reply to  Jeremy Poynton

It has its moments. Problem is it is at war with a far more dominant and ruthless Islamism. There is no guarantee that the war will be won by those on the side of right.

Mark Corby
Mark Corby
3 years ago

Christianity had little to do with abolishing slavery, first time around so to speak, despite Papal platitudes. It died out because it was a rotten economic model, in short far too expensive.

William the Conqueror’s wonderful Doomsday Book records plenty of Anglo Saxon slaves across the country. Two centuries or so later they had gone. An act of Manumission by our revered Plantagenet rulers? No the whole system was just uneconomic on a cost benefit analysis.

Jim Cooper
Jim Cooper
3 years ago

What IS a “root idea” Brian?

Aaron Kevali
Aaron Kevali
3 years ago

Abrahamic religions (really, just Christianity and Islam) essentially create an artifiical tribe, based on shared beliefs rather than shared blood. But even this, given enough time, morphs into a new nation with both blood and beleif being synonymous. Of course, individuals may not personally subscribe, but they are small minority historically speaking. In short, religions are not liberal, nor should they be.

Geoff Cooper
Geoff Cooper
3 years ago
Reply to  Aaron Kevali

Judaism not Abrahamic?

Aaron Kevali
Aaron Kevali
3 years ago
Reply to  Geoff Cooper

No, Judaism does not create an artifical tribe, it is quite literally blood-based. You are born a Jew, you do not (or very rarely) convert.

Cassian Young
Cassian Young
3 years ago

A very partial and misleading account.

The other central value of classical liberalism is reason. This depends upon the Socratic tradition of sceptical enquiry. Reason cannot exist without doubt and questioning.

Socratic values are diametrically opposed to Christian values. Christianity values “faith”. “Faith” is the antonym of “scepticism”.

This is not just an opposition of principle, its a historical fact. Christianity really did seek to suppress the Socratic tradition after it became dominant in Rome. Doubt came to be seen as a personal vice. Religious scholars edited out the more challenging elements of the classical authors.

And this wasn’t just a phenomenon of the Dark Ages. The church was still suppressing reason, learning and Socratic values into the second half of the 19th century. The Enlightenment, the Scientific Revolution and the Industrial Revolution all took place outside our universities, because they were still controlled by the church.

John Locke was a student, taught and wrote in Oxford but his own works were proscribed from being taught there, for instance.

Spiro Spero
Spiro Spero
3 years ago
Reply to  Cassian Young

You’ve obviously never heard of Ireneaus, Augustine, Eriugena, Duns Scotus, Aquinas, Bellarmine, Bousset, Pascal, etc, etc, etc. The only reason you know anything about Socratic method at all is because the church preserved all this knowledge during the ‘dark ages’, ensuring their survival. Who do you imagine founded all the universities in Europe in the first place? God, but the ignorance of contemporary, self-proclaimed ‘brights’ is depressing!

Cassian Young
Cassian Young
3 years ago
Reply to  Spiro Spero

> The only reason you know anything about Socratic method at all is because the church preserved all this knowledge during the ‘dark ages’

That is just false. The Scholastic movement was fired by the entry of classical writing from the Islamic world in the medieval period.

> Who do you imagine founded all the universities in Europe in the first place?

Oxford and Cambridge impeded the development of liberalism. For example, they proscribed Locke’s writing. They did not adopt Enlightenment values until they were imported from Prussia in the second half of the 19th century. Fought tooth and nail by the church of course.

Don’t throw out childish insults.

Spiro Spero
Spiro Spero
3 years ago
Reply to  Cassian Young

No insult intended, friend. That Christians did/do not agree with much of John Locke is hardly a convincing case to whitewash 1500 years of civilization and replace it with Locke.

‘The Scholastic movement was fired by the entry of classical writing from the Islamic world in the medieval period.’

Not that old chestnut! I don’t know you, but I can already picture your bookshelf. What happened to the Islamic world then? In any case, surely, willingness to engage with knowledge on the part of thirteenth century scholastics, wherever it came from, kind of contradicts the myth your ‘liberal’ narrative sits on, does it not?

Cassian Young
Cassian Young
3 years ago
Reply to  Spiro Spero

Its not a liberal narrative. Its a factual narrative. I suggest a read of Prof Bruce A Kimball’s history of elite education and the universities : “Philosophers and Orators”

> What happened to the Islamic world then?

Religion inflicted yet another dark age.

> I don’t know you, but I can already picture your bookshelf.

Tribalism then.

Spiro Spero
Spiro Spero
3 years ago
Reply to  Cassian Young

Oi vey! Define ‘religion’ for me.

Cassian Young
Cassian Young
3 years ago
Reply to  Spiro Spero

Faith or submission to a divine authority.

Read my original comment more closely. I am not denying that Liberalism draws on Christianity, I am saying that elements of Christianity are antithetical to Liberalism and worked against it for centuries.

Aaron Kevali
Aaron Kevali
3 years ago
Reply to  Cassian Young

If not divine, then merely arbitrary or based on force (in practice, usually both). All authority must at least claim legitimacy on the basis on some objective eternal truth principles, even liberalism does in a strange self-contrdictory fashion. Hence a lot of ‘enlightenment’ figures felt the need for deism at the very least.

Aaron Kevali
Aaron Kevali
3 years ago
Reply to  Cassian Young

The Islamic world had Coptic monks and Syriac scribes as effectively
slaves, translating Aristotle and other Greek works. The West lost
contact with these writings (readily available from the Byzantines)
because of Islam.

Yes, Oxford and Cambridge did resist liberalism, but they were converged and eliminated as Christian insttitutions. Darn shame.

Aaron Kevali
Aaron Kevali
3 years ago
Reply to  Cassian Young

Doubting can be a vice, when we are doubting truth. This is the problem with liberalism, it is like acid that eats away everything (except itself of course, liberal principles never get questioned). Locke was wrong, he taught we are born as essential blank slates, and only empirical sense perceptions can provide true knowledge. Both ideas are absurd, but you can find their fingerprints all over modern philosophy, modern ethics, even poltiical policy. He claimed to be based on ‘evidence’, but his ideas are based fundamentally on assumed conclusions far more dubious than those of Christianity. The Dark Ages are fundamentally misnamed, they were not dark because of Christianity (the only thing that held western Eurasian nations together after the fall of Rome),

If somebody said, “I doubt that black people are human”, we would all be aghast and say that this is not something we should doubt.

The Church never had any problem with science, research, debate, questioning – as anyone who actually looks into the Galileo affair will discover very quickly.

Arnold Grutt
Arnold Grutt
3 years ago
Reply to  Cassian Young

“Socratic values are diametrically opposed to Christian values.
Christianity values “faith”. “Faith” is the antonym of “scepticism”.”

This seems an excellent point at which to refer to ‘The Politics of Faith and the Politics of Scepticism’ by (the formidably learned) Michael Oakeshott. His ‘Of Human Conduct’ is also well worth reading (but expensive), and attacks all these questions, in depth. Comparing him with the Dunts of this world is like stepping into fresh air from a house of ill-repute.

Keith Lannon
Keith Lannon
3 years ago

Interesting.
However, I remember some years back reading a book by an African journalist explaining how he believed it was tribal affinities to the level of continentalism that glued African presidents and Prime ministers as “one,” preventing top men from criticising other leaders – especially to the spectating West. He made the point that no African national leader ever publicly criticised Robert Mugabe, because of this continental African tribal consciousness.
However, that historical trait must have stifled this “liberalism” developing across the African Christian continent I suppose. Africa now has such a strong christian presence they are sending their missionaries to the west.

Aaron Kevali
Aaron Kevali
3 years ago

Liberalism is to Christianity what an alien parasite is to its victim, bursting out but retaining some vague features of it’s host.

Liberalism is the anti-thesis of Christianity. It take certain ideas from Christianity (the host) like individual agency and a certain universalism (Christianity is meant for all peoples), gettisons the rest. Liberalism, as seen inthe writing of John Stuart Mill and Rousseau, was already sharpening it’s claws ready to take on Christianity from very early on.

Spiro Spero
Spiro Spero
3 years ago
Reply to  Aaron Kevali

That’s too simple in my view. As much as ‘liberals’ deny their Christian roots, and whitewashing of Western history. Apart from ideology, the roles of state, commerce, etc. are ignored. The church needs to get her house in order for sure, but I see sunny uplands ahead. Tentative prediction: it won’t be long until the family home and church will be the last ‘homely houses’ of the West.

p_v_hassell
p_v_hassell
3 years ago

I say, most impressed to learn the Church encouraged couples to maintain seperate households; jolly good idea!

stephen f.
stephen f.
3 years ago
Reply to  p_v_hassell

I overheard a woman laughingly telling a friend that social distancing at home was saving her marriage…

Jim Cooper
Jim Cooper
3 years ago

Oh dear, anybody claiming an ideology is ROOTED in another ideology needs ignoring – let’s cancel the liberals; it really is dead easy, especially this idiot. An ideology INFLUENCING another ideology is fine; but the language of ROOTEDNESS needs to go …surely the forces of nature are the only ROOTS of phenomena?

Simon Neale
Simon Neale
3 years ago

A similar process happened in India with the emergence of Buddhist teachings. The Buddha completely ethicised action, insisting that intention (kamma) was the key to moral worth, and that individuals were alone responsible for their kamma. The traditional Vedic emphasis upon family and traditional ritual was jettisoned. In effect, the individual became radically responsible for their own spiritual progress, and for the health of society.

For some reason, though, there was no emergence of political liberalism. It might be that the thesis in the article is flawed, or there might of course have been confounding variables which meant that the effect was lessened. Perhaps it was the Islamic invasion from the north, which wiped out the individualistic legacy along with the Buddhist monasteries and universities.

Teo
Teo
3 years ago
Reply to  Simon Neale

The individualistic thug culture that is now forming in the UK!

lesterfwilson8
lesterfwilson8
3 years ago

No mention of the Magna Carta.

Aaron Kevali
Aaron Kevali
3 years ago
Reply to  lesterfwilson8

He’s not English/British, so why would he value it?

Katharine Eyre
Katharine Eyre
3 years ago

Really interesting piece, many thanks!

My comments:
1) I disagree that liberalism stands in opposition to identity politics – surely identity politics is a particularly radical offshoot of liberalism?
2) On the question of whether liberalism stands in opposition to populist nationalism: first off, the author fails to define “populist nationalism”, which is a clear error in the text. The word “populism” is thrown around so liberally today (pun not intended) that it has become devoid of all meaning. The author should either explain what he means by it in the context or omit the word entirely. And if we do leave it out and state that “liberalism stands in opposition to nationalism”? Well, that’s not clear either. It would depend on the nature of the nation state to which nationalists wish to retreat. While I would say that the nationalism of Viktor Orbán is opposed to liberalism in that it seeks to impose a more authoritarian approach – the nationalism of a Boris Johnson is not so much of a contradiction. That is, if you are of the opinion that the EU was too authoritarian and individual liberties would be best protected and promoted by leaving…

Stephen Hoffman
Stephen Hoffman
3 years ago

Maybe the biggest peculiarity of our Christian tradition is an inherited shame at descending from a (Christian) tradition. Modern liberals want to be self-invented. (Isn’t that what Descartes’ cogito sum is all about?) Dunt’s shame is a product of his Christian legacy. That is truly WEIRD.

Banned User
Banned User
3 years ago

It’s not a matter of “shame”, it’s a matter of realising that the last few centuries have changed the nature of Western civilization so profoundly that the Christian past really does seem a far more distant, crude and primitive culture altogether.

While it may be interesting for historians to debate which strands of pre-Enlightenment thought helped usher in the later era, the difference between the two worlds is truly immense. For the dwindling number of Westerners who still cling to supernaturalism and superstition, there may be some solace in attempts to rehabilitate the “Christian heritage”, but the rest of us really have no use for it at all.

Stephen Hoffman
Stephen Hoffman
3 years ago
Reply to  Banned User

It’s a matter of shame.

Stephen Hoffman
Stephen Hoffman
3 years ago
Reply to  Banned User

The hands that reach out from the earth (i.e. our flesh)”our buried ancestors, the bonds of our family and our inherited religious traditions (i.e. “false idols”)”hold us back from the Spirit and must be fought against. That is the “shamefast” Christian’s solemn duty. That is the meaning of Original Sin. Cultures outside the Christian-liberal tradition aren’t ashamed of their ancestors.

Banned User
Banned User
3 years ago

Presumably you’re a Christian or come from a Christian background, and actually identify with those “ancestors”. I come from an atheist background and feel no such personal kinship.

Stephen Hoffman
Stephen Hoffman
3 years ago
Reply to  Banned User

Big deal.

Aaron Kevali
Aaron Kevali
3 years ago
Reply to  Banned User

Autist detected.

Aaron Kevali
Aaron Kevali
3 years ago

Yes, liberalism also denies the Fall of Man and or Original Sin, but has replaced it with something so much worse. Shame at being Christian/white/male/etc.. The horror of this is that only SOME people are fallen, others are effectively saints and are justified in anything they do to defeat Satan bigotry.

Stephen Hoffman
Stephen Hoffman
3 years ago
Reply to  Aaron Kevali

What you say is true, but you’re still missing the point. Liberalism denies the Fall of Man and Original Sin because denying the flesh (the past) in favor of the Spirit (the future) is a very Christian thing to do, and liberalism is Christianity’s heir. Let’s face it: the seeds of of Christianity’s”and Liberalism’s”collapse were sown by Christianity itself.

Michael Whittock
Michael Whittock
3 years ago

Jesus Christ is credited by many political perspectives from extreme left to far right as being, at least, influential in their thinking. That is quite a feat considering He professed no interest in politics, although contemporary politicians had a great deal of interest in Him. However it would have been easy for Him to enter the political arena. The records show He had much popular support and there were attempts to make Him an insurgent leader. (John’s Gospel 5.14-15; 121-19).
But His main concern was the announcement of the Kingdom of God and to explain it through His teaching and demonstrate it through His ministry, especially healing and raising the dead. The Kingdom of God is the Sovereign Rule of God which one day will be fully established in this world, not by political movements, but by the action of God Himself. It will be a total and complete renewal in every part of life. Everything will become as God originally intended it to be. Death,decay,sin,evil and everything associated with it will be wiped away. As the Bible puts it “there will be a new heaven and a new earth”.
Jesus invites men and women to become citizens of God’s Kingdom and, empowered by the Holy Spirit,to live a life which manifests the life of the Kingdom. This is where Christianity should impact the political because in God’s Kingdom there will be love, justice, peace and righteousness. Every Christian is called upon to work out how these and other Kingdom realities can be manifested in their own lives.
But always and in every way the main focus of the Kingdom is the King – God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit and our worship of and obedience to Him.

Drahcir Nevarc
Drahcir Nevarc
3 years ago

In an otherwise very good and interesting article, I take issue with these two sentences:-

“Calling yourself a classical liberal on Twitter is like confessing you wear socks with sandals. Liberalism is also, nowadays, in opposition to populist nationalism and identity politics.”

Firstly, classical liberals are surely Orange Book types, the descendants of free trade Peelites, who might naturally find a home in the Tory party, whereas socks-&-sandals liberals are more akin to the Radicals with whom the Peelites and Whigs entered into a marriage of convenience in the 1850’s.

Secondly, liberalism of the latter type is most certainly not in opposition to identity politics. Leila “Slugger” Moran was a serious candidate in the LibDem leadership election a few months ago, and she’s as woke as they come.

G Matthews
G Matthews
3 years ago

I find the search to root everything in “Judeo-Christian Values” as highly tedious. If anyone says this to me I reply by saying I have “Post-Christian Graeco-Romano Values”. The immediate “church” of the direct disciples of Jesus with no establishment and direct communication to God could not be any different to the medieval Catholic Church where congregations were forced to attend or else be fined or worse. How could this article not mention the Greek philosophers? The Bible, which unlike the Koran is not claimed to be the word of God, was shaped by the thought of the Greeks, not vice-versa. Whatever came out of the mouth of Jesus came to us through a lot of filters with vested interests.

7882 fremic
7882 fremic
3 years ago
Reply to  G Matthews

I find the refusal to find everything in Western culture and society rooted in Judeo-Christian values tedious. I find people talking of Christmas being a pagan winter solstice event appropriated by the Christians a correlation with their lack of understanding of history of the Church.

Christianity gave the paramount notion of ‘Free Will’ being our innate quality, and thus we carry the burden of all our choices, AND then also the opportunity of redemption from the bad choices based on our individual case, Two very individualistic qualities, and thus we became individuals with all the qualities Liberalism likes to claim as its own. We now owned our sins, and also owned the opportunity of forgiveness, this coupled with the commandments of fairness, justice, decency, honesty, charity, to base our choices on, and the rest of what Liberalism has appropriated as theirs.

A Spetzari
A Spetzari
3 years ago
Reply to  7882 fremic

Christianity gave the paramount notion of ‘Free Will’ being our innate quality

Plato and Aristotle find the Judeo-Christian appropriation of the concept of Free Will tedious 😉

Not being facetious – just continuing the rhetoric here.

Yes Christianity (although, you might argue, which branch…Catholicism I presume) has placed importance on this but it is not remotely unique.

That’s the issue here – I don’t think anyone seriously believes that Christianity doesn’t form a part of the foundation of Liberal values – it’s just a disagreement on how much influence it really had. Liberal values largely came out of a rejection of the dominant Christian canon of the era (C16-18) and specifically the dominant Catholic worldview. It is intrinsically tied to Protestant vs Catholic conflict.

Bit rambling, but I think you get what I am saying

Aaron Kevali
Aaron Kevali
3 years ago
Reply to  A Spetzari

I think you are broadly correct here Spetzari, I think Christianity contributed to liberalism almost by accident, it is the b*****d offspring of Christendom but not something Christians can or should take pride in. Watching christians argue for freedom of speech and equality of the sexes is agonizing, I speak as a ‘radical traditionalist’ Catholic here, let the ‘endarkenment’ continue by itself, it continues to show its true nature with every passing century and decade.

Tom Graham
Tom Graham
3 years ago
Reply to  A Spetzari

If you read Holland you will realise that Protestantism is very Catholic.
As the article says, it all goes back to Saint Paul.

Robert Forde
Robert Forde
3 years ago
Reply to  7882 fremic

“… Fairness, justice, decency, honesty, charity …”

And from these was born The Inquisition.

Pretty is as pretty does. Pretty values demonstrated by ugly witchhunts, burnings, etc, aren’t much to do with liberality.

Present-day values are the product of many things, and possibly Christianity is one of them. But Christianity itself has been through many changes. So what? I really can’t see what the alleged and debatable origins of a particular movement 2,000 years ago have to do with its utility – or otherwise – in the present day. Are we supposed to fall to our knees and pray? Probably not, but then, what is the point?

Oh, and there was a midwinter festival going back as far as we have any knowledge. Not to mention the spring festival of Easter, whose very name is still pagan. Christianity has a long history of colonising indigenous festivals everwhere it went. Look at the black Jesus festivals of South America.

Aaron Kevali
Aaron Kevali
3 years ago
Reply to  Robert Forde

Yawn. Witchunts and burnings are very liberal. The French Revolution itself (or was that not liberalism?) outdid the Inquisition in a matter of weeks. The Inquisition killed 3000 people over three hundred years, and only after very scrupulous and evidence-based trials (witchcraft was not a crime they were interested in, incidentally – it was mostly finding out Jews/Muslims who were only pretending to be Christian after the Reconquista).Counting skulls solves nothing.

Incidentally, from Encyclopedia Britannica: “There is now widespread consensus that the word derives from the Christian designation of Easter week as in albis, a Latin phrase that was understood as the plural of alba (“dawn”) and became eostarum in Old High German, the precursor of the modern German and English term.” The Venerable Bede was the origin of the pagan spring goddess etymology, and he was likely mistaken.

Claire D
Claire D
3 years ago
Reply to  G Matthews

The first five books of the Bible were written down between 1300 – 800 BC, they were passed on orally before that, so Judaism predates the Greek philosophers.

A Spetzari
A Spetzari
3 years ago
Reply to  Claire D

Indeed – but Free Will is not promoted by traditional Judaism at all. Quite the opposite. That comes with Christianity and (principally) St. Augustine in the early period. But was most certainly not unique to Christianity. The concept of Free Will simply works better philosophically with polytheistic religions than with an omnipotent omniscient being.

Claire D
Claire D
3 years ago
Reply to  A Spetzari

“Free Will is not promoted by traditional Judaism at all” !!!

On the contrary, Free Will is central to the Bible from the very beginning : God gives the choice of good or evil to Adam and Eve, Genesis 3:3, “God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.”
They chose to touch, to eat, to die.

Deuteronomy 30:19, “I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you, life and death, blessing and cursing, therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live”.

Cassian Young
Cassian Young
3 years ago
Reply to  Claire D

> Genesis 3:3, “God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.”
They chose to touch, to eat, to die.

So any parent, in any culture, at any time, who forbade their children to do something asserted the existence of free will? That’s a bit of a stretch.

David Morley
David Morley
3 years ago
Reply to  Cassian Young

I think there is a confusion here between free will and freedom of conscience.

In the Old Testament god sets forth the law which people are expected to obey. They have free will (in the philosophical sense) in that it is possible for them to disobey.

They are not free to simply change the law, or ignore it, according to their own conscience.

A Spetzari
A Spetzari
3 years ago
Reply to  Claire D

Indeed there are examples of it in the Bible – as there examples of all sorts – but it is one of the great paradoxes (of both faiths) – as you simply cannot have an omniscient and omnipotent god and have any meaningful sort of free will. And vice versa.

Christianity however muddies the concept further – especially in Catholicism. Predestination, mused by St Augustine but taken to its logical conclusion by Calvin and others, then goes forward to negate any concept of free will.

A better way of putting it would be that Judaism and Christianity (at least non-Protestant/Calvinist) does not have free will in the way that polytheistic religions easily acomodate it.

David Morley
David Morley
3 years ago
Reply to  A Spetzari

“you simply cannot have an omniscient and omnipotent god and have any meaningful sort of free will”

You can. You just pay the price. And that payment is entirely unavoidable and without defence.

A Spetzari
A Spetzari
3 years ago
Reply to  David Morley

Get what you’re saying – but the contradiction is that an omnipotent being that chooses to not intervene is choosing to and the true free will resides with it. The free will of the individual is irrelevant whilst there is an ultimate arbiter above it.

David Morley
David Morley
3 years ago
Reply to  A Spetzari

I think the disagreement here is between a philosophical and a political (for want of a better word) conception of free will.

I am currently free (philosophically) to blow up the Houses of Parliament. I am not politically free to do so.

The difference is made clear by their opposites. The opposite of philosophical free will is determinism. The opposite of political free will is tyranny.

A Spetzari
A Spetzari
3 years ago
Reply to  David Morley

I am currently free (philosophically) to blow up the Houses of Parliament. I am not politically free to do so.

Interesting distinction and is the same as theological free will.

A better analogy for this whole debate would be with a classroom of children and a teacher*

A child might be free to do whatever it wants – but would not get away with it unless the teacher chose to let them. Nobody could argue that a child in a class has complete free will in this environment. All actions are at the behest of the teacher regardless of the child’s choice to do or not.

And so it’s the same with an omnipotent deity. We might choose to do whatever we wish (and reap any potential consequences). But the very deity being omnipotent and omniscient renders this “choice” ultimately irrelevant as it is part of the deity’s plan as they choose to intervene or not.

Your opposites argument is a bit too binary i think – unless you believe that not being allowed to blow up parliament is tyranny (by logic of your own reasoning)

*notwithstanding hypothetical classrooms with an ineffectual teacher or particularly unruly children – just a general classroom/teacher/pupil dynamic is meant here.

David Morley
David Morley
3 years ago
Reply to  A Spetzari

“the very deity being omnipotent and omniscient renders this “choice” ultimately irrelevant as it is part of the deity’s plan as they choose to intervene or not.”

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I would take this as a relatively late theological argument – if god knows already what will happen in the future then in what sense can our choices be free? But I’m not sure if the authors of the Old Testament would have seen it like this.

Bear in mind that we are not discussing the consistency of the concept of free will – just it’s presence in the Old Testament.

Re the philosophical/political distinction, my point is only that some of the commenters at at cross purposes – they mean different things by free will.

A Spetzari
A Spetzari
3 years ago
Reply to  A Spetzari

According to your own argument, you acknowledge that we do have free will. The mere fact that said Deity chooses not to intervene even though He could, underlines how free we are.

I think you have misunderstood, since I am not mentioning my own views with regards to free will – just pointing out the clear paradox of free will and omnipotence coexisting.*

What is particularly interesting to me is that God Himself by His actions takes responsibility for the decisions we make, and their consequences. […] And although He does everything possible to encourage us to choose correctly and it His earnestly held desire (or ‘will’, if you will), in the end He will respect and ultimately reward whatever decision we make.

Freedom of will has never been more free!

Assuming an omnipotent god, you are only as free in as much as god has allowed you to do whatever you want. Which is not freedom if you have an ultimate arbiter placed above you blocking or enabling your actions.

* for what it’s worth I am not religious; to me, free will is beyond question conceptually, and society/laws/nations that provide the various constraints upon it.

Starry Gordon
Starry Gordon
3 years ago
Reply to  A Spetzari

‘… you simply cannot have an omniscient and omnipotent god and have any meaningful sort of free will.’

That seems incorrect. Since the omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, etc. etc., God presumably precedes the creation of logic, along with everythihg else, he/she/it/they can set things up as [pronouns] may please. God is not limited by God’s creation.

A Spetzari
A Spetzari
3 years ago
Reply to  Starry Gordon

That seems incorrect. Since the omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, etc. etc., God presumably precedes the creation of logic, along with everythihg else, he/she/it/they can set things up as [pronouns] may please. God is not limited by God’s creation.

That isn’t an argument I’m afraid and a cop out. That’s just saying “it is because it is – god did it” which is circular. Like the playground saying “infinity plus one”. It renders any further discussion meaningless.

Starry Gordon
Starry Gordon
3 years ago
Reply to  A Spetzari

It’s not exactly a cop-out. Sometimes we come up against the limits of what we can do with language, logic, and the little monkey brains in which we process them. For instance, we can say that there are two men in town, each of which is taller than the other. The sentence is grammatical but it is also absurd. Postulating a being that is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and so forth presents similar problems: we are outside the realm of language and reason (and experience as well). Yes, we can state that there is such a being and we can believe in it if we like; no, we can’t successfully reason about that being, or positively declare truths about it which we can defend using evidence and logic. ‘Credo quia absurdum est.’

A Spetzari
A Spetzari
3 years ago
Reply to  Starry Gordon

Sometimes we come up against the limits of what we can do with language, logic, and the little monkey brains in which we process them.

Completely agree. Bit by bit we may be able reduce this deficit but we’re ultimately prisoners of our own biology.

Where I guess we disagree is that for me, creating (or believing in) something) that is beyond complex and beyond our understanding is not a sufficient answer to the questions of existence. It’s a marginally more sophisticated answer to the question as saying “it is because it is”, but equally as unsubstantial and unsubstantiated. It offers nothing to support it as an argument.

The difference is essentially – I believe it is ok to say that we don’t know something – yet This is the same in some ways as what you’re saying, but without the need to create a ‘catch all’ answer of ‘god did it’

David Morley
David Morley
3 years ago
Reply to  Claire D

I agree (see my other comment) that free will is present in the Old Testament, but it is in many ways seen as a burden rather than as something to celebrate. As a “fall”.

Depending on your theology, the fate of humans is a particularly heavy one. They cannot simply follow their instincts in innocence like the animals, but neither are they automatically good.

Wer die Wahl hat, hat die Qual. As the Germans put it. Who has the choice, has the torture.

Claire D
Claire D
3 years ago
Reply to  David Morley

“seen as a burden”

Yes, that is the price we pay for our consciousness, our humanity, but it certainly makes life interesting and challenging. And it is still possible to choose goodness, and therefore redemption to some extent.

David Morley
David Morley
3 years ago
Reply to  Claire D

Interesting that in modern popular culture freedom is not associated with any kind of burden at all. It is more about casting off burdens and doing what you like.

Claire D
Claire D
3 years ago
Reply to  David Morley

Yes, but there’s a hunger for something more demanding of the Self I think, shown by Jordan Peterson’s popularity for example.

David Morley
David Morley
3 years ago
Reply to  Claire D

Yes, I’m inclined to agree – but the history of the way in which we understand freedom is interesting in itself. I would say that that understanding is currently in flux. In particular as regards freedom of speech. And the extent to which we value it is currently an area of disagreement.

Starry Gordon
Starry Gordon
3 years ago
Reply to  Claire D

But it’s not a political fact in the Bible. The ancient tribes did not sit around discussing the merits of individualism and decide to adhere to the idea. That’s why there are those extended genealogies — you don’t know who a person is until you know who his ancestors, his homeland, his gods, etc. are.

Mark Corby
Mark Corby
3 years ago
Reply to  A Spetzari

I would like to challenge that but currently UnHerd is not the platform.

Aaron Kevali
Aaron Kevali
3 years ago
Reply to  A Spetzari

It does not. Greek philsophy was pretty fatalistic, wth human beings being chess pieces moved by the gods. Islama falls into this trap too, as do some variants of protestant christianity (Calvinism).

Starry Gordon
Starry Gordon
3 years ago
Reply to  Aaron Kevali

That depended on which philosophers you decided to listen to.

Mark Corby
Mark Corby
3 years ago
Reply to  Claire D

That’s a bit of an exaggeration isn’t it?
The book of Amos is conventionally thought to have been the first written down during the reign of the wonderfully named King Jeroboam in about 750-700 BC.

That does off course, predate Thales of Miletus, described as first Greek philosopher by a little over a century.

However can you really compare the Bible to the complexity and intellect of the huge corpus of Greek and later Roman philosophical thought?

Incidentally you may know the word ‘Bible’ comes from the Greek word ‘Byblos’, also a city on the Phoenician coast and an alternative word for papyrus or paper.

Mark Corby
Mark Corby
3 years ago
Reply to  Claire D

That’s a bit of an exaggeration isn’t it?
The book of Amos is conventionally thought to have been the first written down during the reign of the wonderfully named King Jeroboam in about 750-700 BC.
That does off course, predate Thales of Miletus, described as first Greek philosopher by a little over a century.
However can you really compare the Bible to the complexity and intellect of the huge corpus of Greek and later Roman philosophical thought?
Incidentally you may know the word ‘Bible’ comes from the Greek word ‘Byblos’, also a city on the Phoenician coast and an alternative word for papyrus or paper.

Mark Corby
Mark Corby
3 years ago
Reply to  Claire D

Sorry, but that is a gross distortion.

Mark Corby
Mark Corby
3 years ago
Reply to  Claire D

Sorry, but that is a gross distortion, but UnHerd seems to be your protecting Angel, and so far has refused to both post it, and an earlier, slightly longer reply.

Fraser Bailey
Fraser Bailey
3 years ago
Reply to  G Matthews

I tend to agree. I read Holland’s ‘Dominion’ and considered it to be a bad book. Even had i agreed with him I would consider it a bad book because I don’t like the way he writes or the way in which he structures his books. (I have also read one of his history books). In particular, I disagree with this claim that Wokery flows from Christianity, because there is nothing forgiving or tolerant about the Woke.

Liberalism may owe something to Christianity, I don’t know. Nor, as a traditional liberal who is suspicious of all organised religion, do I particularly care. Anther poster here has talked about the way in which the Christianized Romans killed off all the Druids in Britain. I am with Julian Cope when he suggests that the Ancient Britons were going along perfectly well with their stone circles and Druids etc, then the Romans and Christians screwed it all up. I would quite like to get back to that – but with the internet and football.

Jeremy Poynton
Jeremy Poynton
3 years ago
Reply to  Fraser Bailey

“in particular, I disagree with this claim that Wokery flows from Christianity, because there is nothing forgiving or tolerant about the Woke.”

One could well argue that woke invokes the vengeful and merciless God of the Old Testament, surely?

Fraser Bailey
Fraser Bailey
3 years ago
Reply to  Jeremy Poynton

Good point – the OT updated as a Tweet for a Tweet.

Aaron Kevali
Aaron Kevali
3 years ago
Reply to  Jeremy Poynton

Wokery endorses victimhood but without redemption. It endorses burning for heresy, but with no absolute truth claims. It tries to proclaim justice, but conflates equal treatment with justice. It is a holiness spiral, something that actually can occur in religions too (Christianity included), and is an unfortunate trait of fallen humanity.

Starry Gordon
Starry Gordon
3 years ago
Reply to  Aaron Kevali

That is a curious thing about what I think you’re calling ‘wokery’. Much of it doesn’t seem to have much foundational thought behind it. For instance, why is racism bad? Over the centuries and millennia, many cultures, philosophies, religions, political movements and so on have declared that it was a positive good. Some of them cited religious authority, others a sort of pseudo-science or public opinion and common sense. If you don’t know why racism is bad, you probably won’t be able to deal with it at all, much less get rid of it. And useless circular discussions and policies will ensue. The same is true, of course, of anti-wokery. The need for tribalism runs deep, as does a desire to escape from it.

Aaron Kevali
Aaron Kevali
3 years ago
Reply to  Starry Gordon

Well, truth be told I don’t actually accept ‘racism’ as a valid concept, anymore than not sleeping with anyone other than my wife means that I hate women. I love my own children more than other people’s children. Doesn’t mean I hate other children, but love for my own comes much more easily. “Racism” to me is a human basic, if a person doesn’t love his own nation and those closer to him by birth/blood, then it suggests that there is something dysfunctional with that person.

TL:DR You’re right, declaring racism to be bad without explaining why is very strange, and given the evolutioanry theory currently in vogue, I would say it is downright absurd to call ‘racism’ evil.

Robert Forde
Robert Forde
3 years ago
Reply to  Fraser Bailey

Not much forgiving or tolerant about Christianity in practice, whatever the theory. From the Inquisition to the modern Balkans, via Belfast. Indeed, Christians started murdering each other after the Council of Nicaea in 325CE. For being not quite the right sort of Christian, of course.

Claire D
Claire D
3 years ago
Reply to  Robert Forde

That’s human behaviour I’m afraid, not Christianity. Cain and Abel over and over again.

Aaron Kevali
Aaron Kevali
3 years ago
Reply to  Robert Forde

#righteous
#iwouldnever
#autistic

The issues you have described are so complex they would require reams of comments, not going to bother. Google is your friend, on this one.

Cassian Young
Cassian Young
3 years ago
Reply to  G Matthews

Agreed. Christianity promoted Plato’s ideas (e.g. ideal forms) but suppressed his value system.

This was based around scepticism, doubt and questioning for oneself and these Socratic values are diametrically opposed to Christian values. Christianity values “faith”. “Faith” is the antonym of “scepticism”.

This was an extremely negative outcome, as the values were far more valuable than the philosophy itself. As Plato himself believed, I think.

Mark Corby
Mark Corby
3 years ago
Reply to  Cassian Young

Faith is belief in the unbelievable, the antithesis of reason/logos.

Aaron Kevali
Aaron Kevali
3 years ago
Reply to  Cassian Young

Christians took the best and left the dross. Greek values were not good values, even by modern secular standards, they were shocking. Faith is not an antonym of scepticism.

Faith is the firm belief based upon confidence in the authority and veracity of another, which can be granted if we see evidence that this authority and veracity is merited. Like if a guy says he’s god or something, but then we kill him, and he rises from the dead. I would be inclined to trust him after that.

Starry Gordon
Starry Gordon
3 years ago
Reply to  Aaron Kevali

Rising from the dead might not be encouraging; consider ‘Night of the Living Dead’. In any case, I would demand reliable evidence available to common observation, not just hearsay.

John Brown
John Brown
3 years ago

“Before Descartes came along, we had the Middle Ages ” the age of tyranny and enforced superstition.”

It should not be forgotten that Christianity exported a new form of tyranny throughout the world. Here in Britain the Druid community was wiped out to the last man, woman and child by the Christian Romans.

Later, thanks to the rise of Christianity in Europe, the “superstitious” beliefs of indigenous peoples world-wide were replaced by stories of talking snakes, magic trees and the splendour of human sacrifice.

Mark Corby
Mark Corby
3 years ago
Reply to  John Brown

I think you will find that the Druids were largely wiped out by the Romans, under one, Gaius Seutonius Paulinus, long before the virus of christianity arrived in these Islands.

They were replaced by a polytheistic system, which had only two major prohibitions, you weren’t allowed to kill people, nor demand public money.

It worked rather well for about three centuries.

Mark Corby
Mark Corby
3 years ago
Reply to  John Brown

I think you will find that the Druids were largely wiped out by the Romans, under one, Gaius Seutonius Paulinus, long before the virus of christianity arrived in these Islands.
They were replaced by a polytheistic system, which had only two major prohibitions, you weren’t allowed to kill people, nor demand public money.
It worked rather well for about three centuries.

Robert Forde
Robert Forde
3 years ago
Reply to  John Brown

Actually, the Romans were not Christian at that time, but over 300 years later, though I doubt if their conversion encouraged them to be any more tolerant of paganism.

Aaron Kevali
Aaron Kevali
3 years ago
Reply to  John Brown

Most druids and pagans converted willingly. When Augustine of Canterbury came to the British Isles, and when Patrick came (back) to Ireland, they had no soldiers to convert anyone with. Only faith, and apparently miracles.

Claire D
Claire D
3 years ago

Great article, thank you Tomiwa.

johntshea2
johntshea2
3 years ago

Amen and thanks for an enlightening article!

Martin Butler
Martin Butler
3 years ago

The populism we see now is actually a turning back to a more tribal ethic. This move I suspect is because both Chrsitiansity and liberalism provides us with an incomplete picture. Autonomous individuals only really make sense in a particular social context. The social contract theory is the only account that liberals provide and it has been found wanting. So there is an instinctual reaction back to the tribe as a more reliable and less abstract understanding of the group. This unfortunately is not great either. Think we need an image of society which goes beyond both.

Peter KE
Peter KE
3 years ago

Interesting article.
1. Does not seem to address responsibility to the family or society, we cannot expect rights including liberalism without responsibility.
2. Biggest issue is the the terms liberal and liberalism have been misappropriated by the left wing anarchist woke who try and suggest they are liberals but the truth is they are anti democratic criminal thugs who wish to damage liberal democratic society. A clear distance needs to be made from the woke thugs and liberalism or indeed democratic society. The woke should be purged from all state organisations including universities.

james.simister
james.simister
3 years ago

‘The Discovery of the Individual’ by (Prof.) Colin Morris is another book very relevant to Tomiwa’s argument. It outlines the development of ideas in Christendom from around 1050 to 1200. An earlier work covering some of the same field is RW Southern’s ‘The Making of the Middle Ages’. Thanks, Tomiwa, for this fine article.

LCarey Rowland
LCarey Rowland
2 years ago

Amen! and Hallelujah

Teo
Teo
3 years ago

Liberalism seeking to justify its lawless hyper-individualism with Christianity, something fishy when what is claimed to be a live-and-let-live political philosophy needs to embezzle a moral back bone.

Peter Ian Staker
Peter Ian Staker
3 years ago

We pick and chose from different religions and philosophies. We picked the ideas that worked in practice and grounded them in logic instead of faith. I think you maybe disagreeing about different things. Perhaps he is arguing that getting the right ideas for the wrong reasons can limit the ability of liberalism to work and progress in the real world.

Aaron Kevali
Aaron Kevali
3 years ago

Faith is intellectual acceptance of revealed truth. It is not the opposite of logic. If a divine being (hypothetically) revealed itself and told us stuff, it is logical to obey and accept it.

Jaunty Alooetta
Jaunty Alooetta
3 years ago

The roots of the idea that we are individuals with rights and the capacity for reason predate Christianity by some way. In fact, aspects of this idea emerged simultaneously in different parts of the world in the 5th Century BC, when Pythagoras, Confucius and Siddartha Gautama (the Buddha), who likely walked the earth at the same time, set out their novel thought systems in, respectively, Greece, China and India, which caught on like wildfire at the time, and which, uniquely, flourished down through time as well.

Teo
Teo
3 years ago

The article suggests that liberalism with its emphasis on the individual is a counter to tribalism, at the extreme liberalism is the precursor of tribalism, the invitation that opens the door to the idealisation of a superman.

Eleanor Barlow
Eleanor Barlow
3 years ago

‘If any individual could be said to have conceived liberalism, it would
be the father of Christianity, St. Paul, in the first century.’

He might have conceived liberalism but if so, it excluded half the human race – women. Not very liberal, and that lack of liberalism is still reflected in Catholicism and evangelical Christianity.

Aaron Kevali
Aaron Kevali
3 years ago
Reply to  Eleanor Barlow

St Paul did not exclude women, this is sixth-form level rhetoric. Men and women are part of the Mystical Body of Christ and all are called to salvation. He beleived, as nearly everyone today does (whether they admit it or not) that men and women are different, and that we have different roles to play. Any church that accepts female leadership dies in short order, I’ll leave you to ponder why this might be.

Miriam Uí
Miriam Uí
3 years ago
Reply to  Aaron Kevali

Not so. Look at the Four Square pentecostal denomination founded by Aimee Semple McPherson in the 1920s or the many Catholic orders of nuns founded by women such as Mother Teresa. Different roles within the family do not exclude leadership in the church.

Aaron Kevali
Aaron Kevali
3 years ago
Reply to  Miriam Uí

Yes so. Definitely. Denial of this is so far removed from reality – picking out weird cults nobody has ever heard of doesn’t help matters. The fact that they are largely unknown only compounds the failure.

Oh and poppet? Mother Teresa did not want female ordination. Nor has the foundress of any female religious order in the Catholic Church. Even your own examples are opposed to your ideas.

Grow up, submit to God. Opposing His will only harms yourself, it doesn’t harm Him or His Church.

Michael Whittock
Michael Whittock
3 years ago
Reply to  Aaron Kevali

No this won’t do. You’ll have to give substance to your last sentence in the light of the experience of many congregations that they are growing spiritually and numerically under female leadership,including the one to which I belong.

Aaron Kevali
Aaron Kevali
3 years ago

Liar. No they aren’t, and I don’t need to prove anything to you as the Bible clearly says what it says. Whether you (or I) beleive it, female leadership is inadmissable under Christian auspices. First come the the ladies dressed as vicars, then come openly homosexual men, then come trannies, but not before indifferentism, biblical revisionism, social justice masquerading as the gospel, etc. etc. There are no exceptions.

Show me a single female-led chuch that also teaches biblical inerrancy, or opposes gender theory. You can’t. Becuase in order to have female leadership, those ideas have to be gettisoned in the first place. QED.

Growing “spiritually” sounds like garbage to me unless you actually say what this means. As for growing numerically, I could grow a church by offering beer and pizza every week, but that doesn’t mean its the right thing to do.

Michael Whittock
Michael Whittock
3 years ago
Reply to  Aaron Kevali

You said “any church that accepts female leadership dies in short order”. I reiterate that I know from my own experience that there are churches that are growing under female leadership including the one to which I belong.
There is evidence of female leadership in the Bible and Church History. It was not common,but it was there.
The Church is basically clear on gender, that is to say there is male and female full stop. As far as inerrancy is concerned the Bible is the authoritative Word of God in which we have all we need to know about God,ourselves and our relationship with Him.
Spiritual growth in a congregation is seen when members increasingly show commitment to prayer, worship and Bible study together, willingness to express what they believe and experience of God to others, and willingness to offer service to church and community. It is also seen when individuals grow stronger in their willingness to trust in God and to live in obedience to Him, not out of duty, but out of gratitude and love for Him.
Churches grow numerically when the membership are growing spiritually as outlined above, when the worship is vibrant and full of the presence of God and the preaching is biblical and inspired by the Holy Spirit.
I object strongly to being called a liar. I suggest you read or reread UnHerd’s Community Standards and apply them in your comments.

Miriam Uí
Miriam Uí
3 years ago
Reply to  Eleanor Barlow

Jesus Christ never excluded women. In fact, he most certainly treated women as individuals with dignity in ways unheard of at that time – he even had women disciples and friends (Mary and Martha, the Samaritan woman, the woman caught in adultery and.many many more). There is simply no parallel in ancient or other religious literature. And Paul formulated the most radical statement of human equality – in his letter to the Galatians 3:28:There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ. So no, women are included and highly regarded. This is one of the streams which fed into women’s rights movements in the 19th century.

Steve Gwynne
Steve Gwynne
3 years ago

Your article concurs with my own research. However I would add that natural law and natural rights were developed from the 12th by both Christian and Islamic scholars under the framework of humanism. It was therefore humanism that slowly turned natural rights into human rights.

By the 16th century the scope of human rights were expanded from the interior analysis of the individual ability to reason and the freedoms associated with speech etc to the exterior analysis of political rights which were associated with emerging parliamentary democracies.

Therefore, it wasn’t just a secular shift from faith to reason, which had already begun with the Greeks, but a marriage between natural law and humanism which was later joined by the shift from monarchy to parliamentary democracy that gave rise to liberalism.

Peter Branagan
Peter Branagan
3 years ago

The approach to this topic is irredeemably parochial (i.e. ‘Western’). After the first few paragraphs I skipped to the last few. It is difficult to envisage a more tedious/boring/irrelevant article.

GA Woolley
GA Woolley
3 years ago

“So if anything is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new”. Having had 14 billion years to think about it, god changed his mind. How’s it working out this time around?

Jurek Molnar
Jurek Molnar
3 years ago

Great article.
One of very few accounts which actually get the historial facts right.

Banned User
Banned User
3 years ago

Yeah that’s right, secularism, liberalism, atheism, science, rational philosophy, all this stuff is actually “profoundly Christian” and was heavily promoted by St Paul and the Inquisition long before all these later ingrates came along.

But what are the consequences of these historical acrobatics for you and your religion, Tomiwa? Are the sworn enemies of liberalism who infest today’s Christianity going to change their ways and turn out to be on our side, after all?

Are all the liberal secular atheists like me going to embrace the Church now that we’re told St Paul was our champion, after all?

Or are we likely to dismiss it as just another dreary attempt to make an ancient, superstitious and discredited creed “relevant” to the 21st century?

John Brown
John Brown
3 years ago
Reply to  Banned User

Christians will soon be lecturing us heathens about the dangers of racism and how black lives matter; conveniently forgetting that Jehovah killed a million Ethiopians in one day (if the Old Testament is to be believed).

Chris Hudson
Chris Hudson
3 years ago
Reply to  John Brown

Er…. reference, please?

John Brown
John Brown
3 years ago
Reply to  Chris Hudson

There came out against them Zerah the Ethiopian with an host of a thousand thousand. 2 Chronicles 14.9

So the LORD smote the Ethiopians … they were destroyed before the LORD.

Arnold Grutt
Arnold Grutt
3 years ago
Reply to  John Brown

Christianity is not based on the OT, as the name suggests.

Aaron Kevali
Aaron Kevali
3 years ago
Reply to  Arnold Grutt

Million Ethiopians, blimey! Not so sure about that one, but there were battles and invasions ordered by the Lord God. And if God is real, then He has the right to authorise this in extirpating evil. If He doesn;t have this authority, well…some god indeed.

As for Christianity and the OT, I’m afraid Christianity is definitely based on it, but treats it differently to how the Jewish zealots of the BC years would have done. The New Testament makes no sense without the Old. The NT treats the OT like a foreshadowing, a guide for a holy nation, but that it is not quite the same thing as establishing a Church. OT Israel was a blood nation with spiritual elements, the Church is a spiritual nation made with the blood of Christ.

cheseeeee222
cheseeeee222
3 years ago
Reply to  Banned User

I think the point is: it is important to realise on what shoulders we stand, and to understand how this (individual) freedom we all take for granted was formed. I must admit that our current social constructs don’t offer enough meaning and roots to contribute to a thriving community. We are starting to become a bunch of instagramming, emo-seeking individuals, lacking a greater story to live in. And there’s quite some data to back that up, unfortunately. In my view the emphasis of this book-review should be: and how does that help us forming a relevant future for next generations. For instance: the victimisation (in part this is found in ie. BLM and LHBT..) that people are picking up on, is a harsh fruit of our ‘society of individuals’ that has come out of our secular principles.

Charles Rense
Charles Rense
3 years ago

Yes, and that religion is Greek polytheism.

Aaron Kevali
Aaron Kevali
3 years ago
Reply to  Charles Rense

No. The Greeks would have found no point of commonality with modern liberalism in any form. Theirs was an alien system, very intellectual in it’s best proponents (Aristotle, Plato, Socrates) but they would regard liberalism of any period with incomprehension.

Mark Corby
Mark Corby
3 years ago
Reply to  Aaron Kevali

Not so the Romans however.

Starry Gordon
Starry Gordon
3 years ago
Reply to  Aaron Kevali

I believe the philosophers you mention understood some of the aspects of liberalism, because they explicitly rejected them, which suggests that such ideas were floating around in some form. For instance, Aristotle, justifying slavery, says, ‘But is there any one thus intended by nature to be a slave,
and for whom such a condition is expedient and right; or rather is not all slavery a violation of nature? There is no difficulty in answering this question, on grounds both of reason and of fact. For that some should rule and others be ruled is a thing not only necessary, but expedient;from the hour of their birth, some are marked out for subjection, others for rule.
(Politics, I.5)