On dismissing liberals

One of the many problems with Craig Carter’s reasoning is his constant obsession with labeling views. All positions go through a variety of litmus tests in order to determine where one “fits” in the grand scheme of all things liberal. For instance, Carter tests to see if a position can be called theologically liberal by using the following criteria: 1) a denial of the divinity of Christ, particularly as understood by the early church councils and creeds 2) the denial of penal substituionary atonement 3) a denial of the utter depravity of humanity 4) a historicizing of the eschaton. He calls J. Denny Weaver a liberal for arguing for a nonviolent God! Now, I don’t know where Carter is getting his criteria. But, regardless, I’m not sure I know any theologian in their right mind actually holding such views, but Carter thinks it is rampant. Let’s be honest though, Craig, liberal theologians are practically treated like dinosaurs in the academy. Certainly liberal theology lives on in some quarters, but it is hardly a popular position to hold in the theological world. I mean Barth pretty much single-handedly demolished liberal Protestant theology and as far as the Catholic world goes I’d say in the long run folks like Henri de Lubac and Hans Urs von Balthasar pretty well defeated Karl Rahner or Edward Schillebeeckx. Further, in the theological world “liberal politics” is not at all popular. I mean the true liberals of our day in the theological world are Michael Novak and Christopher Insole. Novak is utterly marginalized and Insole is really swimming upstream.

Now, it is certainly perfectly normal to label views, but such labeling should never function as a way to shut down conversation and dialogue. To call someone a liberal does not amount to an argument against their position. In what sense is so and so a liberal? Why is that bad? One gets the feeling that if you’re labeled a liberal by Craig Carter then he won’t even listen to your point of view. Not only that, you instantly becomes “dangerous” and “fascist” or “heretical” or whatever.

How to talk to a liberal

Craig Carter’s central enemy is “liberalism.” In Carter’s view, “liberalism” manifests itself in a variety of ways. He speaks of “liberal modernity,” “left-liberalism,” “the liberal state,” “liberal theology,” and “liberal fascism.” For Carter, modernity is a thoroughly liberal affair. Liberal modernity has caused capitalism and liberal democracy, socialism and communism, atheism and secularism. Liberalism spawned the “sexual revolution”  has led to a “theocracy in Iowa” on the issue of gay marriage, and is the reason why so many fetuses are aborted. According to Carter, Walter Wink is a liberal because of his “demythologizing” of the principalities and powers. And, although he doesn’t say it out right, John Howard Yoder would be a liberal on this point as well. But, of course, it has become extremely questionable as to whether Carter understands Yoder at all. But, that is for another post.

For now, let’s talk a little more about Carter’s enemy: liberalism. Carter is enthralled with liberalism–he really thinks it is the root of everything wrong in the world. Although Carter goes to great pains to understand and define liberalism, he nevertheless necessarily equivocates when he applies the term to both “neoconservatives” and people like Obama. On the one hand, Carter wants to talk about liberalism in the classical sense of the word. On the other hand, he wants to talk about liberalism in the popular North American sense. So, we have liberalism in the classical sense: key representatives are people like Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, etc. Today, liberalism is the dominant viewpoint–it is the implicit framework of both the Republican and Democratic parties in the U.S. But, in trying to find the roots of this political viewpoint, Carter stretches back to the very foundations of “modernity.” Despite his Baptist affiliation, more and more, Carter is becoming convinced that the Protestant reformation and the nominalists before it really spurred on modernity and therefore all of the problems Carter sees in the world. Next, we  have liberalism in the popular North American sense: liberals are people like Obama and Jim Wallis. Although Carter thinks that the Republican party and particularly the neoconservatives work within a broadly liberal framework (in the classical sense), in his mind they are less liberal. Or, at least they oppose abortion and gay marriage. For Carter, abortion and gay marriage is the height of what he calls liberal fascism–the word “liberal” here is used in the classical and popular sense. One thing is certain in all of this: Carter is decidedly not a liberal.

A few comments are in order. To be against liberalism in the classical sense is not necessarily to make one a conservative, because we’re talking about a particular philosophical viewpoint not a place on a spectrum. In contrast, in the popular sense the opposite of liberalism is indeed conservatism. And so we have the Democrats and the Republicans. But, let’s be clear on this: both parties are liberal in the classical sense. Carter, however, does in fact believe that the opposite of liberalism in the classical sense is conservatism, but if liberalism is not a place on a spectrum, what is conservatism in this context? For Carter, “true conservatism” is basically anything pre-modern. In Carter’s own words, “What I call true conservativism is a political philosophy that historically and logically precedes modernity and calls into question all the nominalism, individualism, rationalism and materialism that flows from the Enlightenment and is expressed in the two great Enlightenment religions: Capitalism & Marxism. True conservatism emphasises the family, localism, agrarianism, tradition, religion, duty & natural law.” So, there you have it, true conservatism in one word is a magical view of something called Christendom.

Carter loves all things genuinely conservative and hates all things liberal. He despises the “evangelical left” for their “socialism” and for their pro-choice politics. He despises Obama because he’s a liberal fascist baby killer. He really despises what he calls “liberal theology” which as far as I can tell is pretty much anyone he disagrees with or anyone who draws at all from modern critical methods. What he identifies as liberal theology is highly problematic in my view. Rowan Williams is a liberal? Oh come on… However, he talks about how he likes Milbank, MacIntyre, Yoder, Barth, de Lubac, von Balthasar, even William Cavanaugh! Yet, he doesn’t seem to be at all aware that all of these folks accept and use modern critical methods. He opposes socialism, but seems totally unaware that many of these folks were or are in fact socialists!

Carter’s criticism of liberalism leads to his criticism of capitalism, but the alternative is not socialism. For him, in economics and increasingly on political and ethical issues the alternative is Catholic social thought. Interestingly, what Carter finds in Catholic social thought is a way out of his predicament between capitalism and socialism. But, what he fails to understand is that the strands of Catholic social thought upon which he draws is thoroughly influenced by liberalism and modernity. In his opposition to socialism, John Paul II took a decidedly liberal path–he advocated some form of tempered capitalism, even at a global level. Indeed, whereas much of previous Catholic social thought had been ardently anti-liberal and anti-capitalist, in many ways he opened the door for a Catholic acceptance of the liberal order, including democracy and capitalism.

So, there is a great deal of irony in all of this. As Carter has opposed liberalism in the classical sense he has found himself opposing liberalism in the popular sense. He wants to be a “true conservative” which places him both on the pre-modern side of things and the conservative side of things on the popular political scene. But his move toward a popular political conservatism, which stems from his hatred of the “evangelical left,” ironically leads him to tacitly accept a sort of tempered liberal politics in Catholic social thought. Thus he finds himself in line with the First Things crowd because they complain and equivocate a lot about liberalism and they oppose abortion and gay marriage.

In my last post I pointed out that he distorts the views of the dead. By this I mean he misinterprets and distorts the views of theologians like Yoder, Barth, de Lubac, and von Balthasar. Yet, even these folks are beginning to feel unsafe for Carter because of their liberalism or modernism or whatever. So, reaching back to Augustine and Aquinas and the pre-moderns is the only answer.

Now, the more serious point that I would like to make is related to the reception of John Howard Yoder. If Carter thinks his politics are in line with Yoder’s then he is out to lunch. Carter’s nostalgia for Christendom, his appeals to natural law, his anti-socialism, his anti-modern stance, his apparent acceptance of capitalism, is not in line with Yoder’s thought at all. Moreover, Carter’s entire theological framework is the epitome of what Yoder called Constantinianism.