Liberalism's Illiberalism (part two)

“No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be devoted to one and despise the other.” -Luke 16:13 Liberalism at the crossroads: that is where we find ourselves today. Classic liberalism has taught us much and been successful in creating some of the most diverse yet unified nations the world has ever seen. Still today, there are parts of the world that desperately need a generous dose of this medicine. But modern liberalism is tearing at the social structure in ways that portend divisiveness and open conflict. Psychologist Jonathan Haidt observes in a new book, The Righteous Mind, that Americans have traditionally embraced six major moral concerns: caring for the weak, fairness, liberty, loyalty, respect for authority, and sanctity. His studies suggest that hardcore, modern liberalism affirms the first three, caring for the weak, fairness, and liberty, while conservatives affirm all six. Modern liberals find conservatives rather alien and when push comes to shove, they see conservatives “as motivated by irrational fears such as racism or ‘homophobia’ … rather than as morally serious beliefs about the common good.”* The tricky part about affirming loyalty, respect for authority, and sanctity is they “require the preservation and transmission of robust and commanding moral truths.”* This comes only from a religious base. Hence, the inherent and widening divide between religious communities and the newly predominant forces of modern, secular liberalism. The simmering conflict over what constitutes marriage is a classic case in point. Modern liberalism seeks to “empower” sexual minorities to live whatever lifestyle they so choose. A traditional understanding of marriage has been affirmed in referendum after referendum by the people only to be overturned in the courts and in a few liberal legislatures. The new definition of marriage is not being put in place by popular consensus but rather by force from above. Religious communities are seen as mean-spirited grinches and narrow-minded bigots. “But no social order can be entirely neutral about moral truth. Diversity cannot be infinite. …Not everything can be permitted; some things, even some ideas, must be prohibited.”* And our Christian faith stands in direct opposition to the idea that people are happier when free to decide for themselves what is right and wrong. We believe that men are slaves to sin and have not the power or vision to deliver themselves from that bondage. It is only as we submit ourselves to the lordship and authority of Jesus Christ that we can be freed from the tyranny of sin and the slow death it brings. As God’s life-giving authority penetrates deeper and deeper into our being, we truly become the free creatures that God intended from the beginning. True freedom is the power to do what we ought rather than the power to do as we want. In 1979, Bob Dylan wrote in a song, “You’re gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed. You’re gonna have to serve somebody. Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord, but you’re gonna have to serve somebody.” Or, as the Apostle Paul put it, “you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness”(Rom. 6:16). It is never a welcome message in this world, however. Up to now we have learned to live in tension with these different voices in our community. But today, the lifestyle-liberationists have identified religious voices as direct roadblocks to their aims. And dialogue has given way to demagoguery. Once again, we are hearing the crowd cry out, “Crucify him, crucify him.” It is the world’s way of silencing the opposition. May we find it in our hearts to forgive them for they know not what they do. Mercy and Truth, *First Things, May 2012, p.5, “After Liberalism.” Mr. Moe