Cox makes it clear that the error of postliberalism, in both its theological and political manifestations, is first and foremost a theological error—and perhaps especially a Christological error. Whether for us today a theological critique or solution would gain any traction among postliberal Christian nationalists is much less clear. There is a small measure of hope in naming the theological problem; it suggests we have the tools to course correct. But political postliberalism largely uses theology as a mere veneer for what is a nakedly brazen power grab. These postliberals believe they were under the thumb of unredeemable, despotic liberals. There is little chance they will be dissuaded by a sermon or even a treatise. A political problem may now require a political solution. Nevertheless, if theologians are going to play a role in that process, they might start by helping Christians to expand their theological imaginations—to use a favorite postliberal term—beyond the church/world divide and away from homogeneity. Theological postliberalism led Christians into this impasse; a renewed theological liberalism might offer the way out.
That last line catches my attention. Regular readers will be aware that I recently shared some reflections about the good fruit of liberal theology (that series is entitled "When Barth and Schleiermacher Kiss"). In that series I suggested that when God is proclaimed as "Wholly Other," theology risks losing contact with human experience. Relevant to this series, postliberal theology, which was influenced by Barth, can run a similar risk in how it posits a strong church/world contrast. In the hands of the postliberal theologians, liberalism and humanistic pluralism can sound like a cesspool of depravity and moral relativism. And as Congdon notes, this theological description can be weaponized by postliberal political theory, used as the sacred warrant for an illiberal and authoritarian politics.
But let me name the concern that flows the other way. As a liberal theologian, Congdon has recently released a book defending a Christian vision of polyamory. To which traditional and orthodox theologians would say, "A defense of polyamory! See, that's exactly the sort of trashy, heretical thing liberal theology always produces." To which I'd say, I agree. There are dragons in this direction.
But there are dragons running in the other direction as well. If you follow the online writings of Doug Wilson and Rod Dreher, both Christian nationalists, you're aware that they are constantly fighting theological battles to their right: white nationalism, misogyny, Nazism, antisemitism. If liberal theology has to deal with the David Congdons, and the other zany stuff you find at the AAR conference, the postliberals have to deal with Nick Fuentes. Everyone has their dragons.
As I said at the start of this series, I often find myself in between these debates. As I described in my "When Barth and Schleiermacher Kiss" series, I have liberal theological instincts. The data of human experience looms large for me. This is why my writings have a progressive, liberal leaning. And yet, as regular readers know, I've come to describe myself as post-progressive. For me, this is different from "postliberal." Postliberalism, at least in its political expressions, really means antiliberal. By contrast, when I use "post" I don't mean "anti." I treat progressivism as a starting place and carry its good fruit forward while also articulating the ways in which progressivism fails and struggles. A true, full-blown progressive might really enjoy David Congdon's defense of polyamory. But as a post-progressive, I don't. As a post-progressive, I think the progressive and liberal approach to human sexuality is broken. But also as a post-progressive, I have not swung to how people like Doug Wilson and Rod Dreher think about gender relations and sexuality. Unlike the postliberal political thinkers, I'm not anti-progressive. The progressive and liberal view of the world has born good fruit that needs to be protected and carried forward. I'll turn to that issue in the next post.
For now, however, just the observation that this post-progressive space I'm occupying is an interesting place to find oneself in the current theological landscape. It keeps me busy because I have dragons to both my right and my left.
