Why I Am a Liberal A. William McVey
I begin by explaining
that I am not really a liberal in the usual sense of the word in present day
Episcopal culture. As a matter of fact, the purpose of this blog is to
reconstruct the meaning of liberalism. I find it important to achieve this
purpose because I wish to make it clear that I am not a conservative. In point
of fact, I was inspired to write this blog after reading an article by my
favorite economist Friedrich A. Hayek, “Why I Am Not a Conservative.”
After some Hayekian
reflection upon theological and ecclesiastical discourse, I have come to the
conclusion that present day church liberals and conservatives share a similar
authoritative dogmatic and morally coercive attitude. Therefore, if there is a
possible journey of hope in a postmodern missionary culture, I recommend a
rediscovery of a 17 century Anglican latitudinarian culture.
The Anglican
latitudinarians of the 17th century, especially the members of the
Cambridge circle, were scholarly Anglicans, but they held that matters of
doctrine, liturgical practice and ecclesiastical organization were of very
little importance. Richard Hooker was really a liberal personalist who had a
pastoral concern for the care of the individual soul and was indifferent about
things like church leadership. Is it not
interesting that church leadership and polity are such big topics today? The
Cambridge Latitudinarians would feel at home in the postmodern culture, and I
suggest would be extremely confused by the conservative/liberal ideological
division of Anglicanism.
Eventually, the
liberalism of the 17 c. that moved into the 18th and 19th
centuries was changed by neo-liberal Anglo-Catholic theologians like Frederick
Denison Maurice who wrote, “I seriously believe that Christianity is the only
foundation of Socialism and a true Socialism is the necessary result of a sound
Christianity.” Contemporary theologians, bishops and clergy to avoid being
called socialist then began to call themselves liberals or progressive liberals.
Consequently, we have redefined liberalism.
These new progressive
church liberals and the church conservatives, however, are rather similar in
their demand for authority. Both schools hold that dogmatic and moral views are
proper objects of coercion. It is primarily this aspect that distinguishes a
classical liberal, or neo-latitudinarian, from a conservative or a liberal. The
progressive liberal and conservative church persons hold for a body of persons
who have a set of beliefs and morals that must be enforced on others through
institutional policy. The classical liberal believes that there are higher beliefs
and values that are shared in dialogue and spiritual transformation, but they
are never enforced by coercive polity.
Let me offer a more via media
Anglican diagram. It is a triangle with the conservatives occupying one corner,
the progressive liberals pulling toward the second and the classic liberals
(neo latitudinarians) toward the third. It is the conservative and the liberals
who keep fighting the authoritative battles, and the classic liberals just keep
seeing it as more and more irrelevant. I have a strong hunch that the best of
our laity are neo latitudinarian liberals.
Yes,Bill, you have defined what has been "progressively" (could not help using the word. . )bothering me since the summer after Kent State (yes, for forty years!) when I heard some of my brothers and sisters singing a new song from which I felt alienated. I continued and turned away from my misgivings until it has become impossible to do so. I find most Episcopal pronouncements, legislative actions and pompous posturings to be irrelevant. Thank you. The definition helps me.
ReplyDeleteExcellent Bill! Thanks for these words.
ReplyDeletePerhaps I'm a neo-latitudinarian! Who knew? History remembered helps, and definitions, to get the middle ground visible and viable again. A lived example might strengthen the argument. Oh, of course it's the polarization that plagues our whole world as we struggle to renew our covenants of faith, hope and love. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteBill, by your definition of liberalism, I am one. Having become both bored and exasperated by the constant pull of progressives and conservatives through institutionalism, I find myself looking for something new with which to define my working relationship with the church. By referring to the Cambridge Platonists, a group that I admired greatly, I can lean towards their point of view quite easily. Thanks for your excellent analysis.
ReplyDeleteI consider myself a liberal Anglo-Catholic and a latitudinarian, so I relate to much of what you write. What I don't understand how anyone could be either say that Hayek is their favorite economist!
ReplyDeleteI see myself - quite often - as a progressive. I am clear about my support for marriage equality and am willing to administer Communion to anyone who asks, but I have no interest in imposing my convictions on anyone else. I guess that would make me an old-fashioned liberal. During the seventies a mutual friend of Ron Reed and me said that I was an anarchist. Perhaps there needs to be a bit of the anarchist in latitudinarians.
ReplyDeleteForgot about that,Dan. -;) Re. the nature of our peculiar Episcopalian form of authoritarianism, it is on first glance not sharp or even greatly hostile in my experience. It is, though, very narcissistic with major doses of ignorant, arrogant self regard. It is not generally even especially overtly mean but rather dismissive and able to give the impression of gliding past and at superior levels beyond that of the lesser beings. This authoritarianism kills debate by manipulating circumstance in such a sophisticated way, that any opposition looks simplistic and morally inferior. Of the last three Presiding Bishops, for instance, and having worked for one of them and personally very familiar with another, they and their cohorts witness such qualities. The confusing aspect is that while we each might hold the same position on a particular issue, how we manage our relationships about and in general toward colleagues and others, is profoundly different. The point is to me the intersection where style becomes decision making substance in pastoral leadership and care. It follows under the old rule of common sense: if it flies like a hawk but says its a dove, it is still a hawk. So look and watch out for the beak and talons . . .
ReplyDelete