The Tensions Between Christianity, Capitalism, and Liberal Democracy: Part 2, A Relationship that is Tense and Conflictual

Having discussed the tensions between capitalism and liberal democracy, I want to now turn to the tensions involving Christianity. In this post, we'll look at the tensions between Christianity and liberal democracy:

There are two tensions between Christianity and liberal democracy that I'd like to highlight.

Both tensions concern how liberal democracy adopts a neutral posture toward values, beliefs, and lifeways. In liberal democracy, so long as you don't harm your neighbor, you are free to believe anything you want and pursue happiness as you think best. In America the most visible example of this is the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

In light of this posture, political theologians on the religious right have made strong and cogent arguments that liberal democracy has pernicious and corrosive effects upon religious belief. To be sure, freedom of religion is lauded, but faith is hard to grow in the soil of liberalism. For my part, the most thoughtful critiques making this point take a cue from Alasdair MacIntyre and his book After Virtue. Specifically, the pursuit of flourishing for a nation, and among those within a nation, demands a teleological vision of the good. What determines a good human life? What makes for a good business? What is our vision of the common good? We need to ask and answer teleological questions about a host of pressing social issues. For example, are marriages good? Are families good? If so, should the state protect, promote and support these goods over against alternative lifeways?

Liberalism can't answer any of these questions. The state is neutral toward questions of "the good," leaving that up to its citizens to work out for themselves.

Basically, liberalism just creates "liberty." Which is a great and glorious good. And yet, without any shared vision of the common good, liberal democracies can't collectively "go anywhere" when it comes to human flourishing beyond maximizing liberty and increasing material prosperity. These are the only two metrics of "progress" available to a liberal democracy. Neutral toward the values and virtues entailed in a teleological account of human flourishing, liberal democracy is constitutionally and Constitutionally unable to pursue any goods that fall outside of liberty and wealth. This evacuates the word "progress" of any moral or value-laden content. Our only "good" is freedom and money.

Further, this space created by liberal democracy has deleterious effects upon the spiritual formation of Christian believers. See the work of James Smith on this point. As any pastor can tell you, it is very difficult to spiritually form a people who define "good" as the maximization of their liberty and bank accounts. As Stanley Hauerwas has made a career pointing out, it is almost impossible to form Americans into Christians. It's easier to get a camel through the eye of a needle than get an American into the Kingdom of Heaven.

Witnessing these impacts of liberalism upon our pursuit of the common good and the church, many on the Christian right demand that the church "take back" the nation.

To be sure, there are cruder and more insightful visions of this on the Christian right. The crudest versions of this are illiberal calls for "Christian nationalism." Simply put, Christian nationalism is the Christian version of Islam's sharia law, and aspires to an illiberal imposition of religious values upon an unwilling public. 

More sophisticated political theologians on the Christian right, horrified by the specter of illiberalism, attempt to articulate visions where faithful Christians can influence, shape, and direct the liberal nation state. Many of these theologians look to the work of Oliver O'Donovan.

And yet, even the most sophisticated political theology cannot alleviate the inherent tensions here. Liberalism, as pernicious as it might be, is connected to democracy. Consequently, any policy a political theologian might recommend, or a Christian voting block might pass, will face another Election Day, over and over again. Democratic politics will persistently destabilize any Christian-informed vision of the good. Which is why you have to give Christian nationalists some credit for their honesty. Christian nationalists know illiberalism is the only way to move a nation state consistently toward a value-laden vision of the good. That good has to be imposed upon the people. Otherwise, they'll vote you out of office or overturn your policy at the ballot box. Liberalism will always dilute every robust Christian political project.

All this is just a very selective sketch of the tensions that exist between Christianity and liberal democracy. Liberalism is corrosive to religious faith and a Christian-informed vision of the common good. And yet, the only way to redress these effects is illiberalism, imposing religious values upon an unwilling populous. Christianity and liberal democracy don't exist comfortably side by side. The relationship between them is tense and conflictual.

Simply put, a Christian nation will be an illiberal nation. And a liberal nation will never be a Christian nation. So pick your poison.