The Imperfect Human System
“The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.” (Luke 4.18,19)
In this blog, I will explore my pre-existing beliefs and convictions regarding Liberalism. Subsequently, I will analyze the arguments presented by Patrick Deneen in his insightful work, How Liberalism Has Failed, to explain how his perspectives both confirm and contest my beliefs. Finally, I will explore how the gospel provides a profound response to the intrinsic longings of humanity that liberalism fails to address.
What I Believe About Liberalism: The Dual Facets
Liberalism, as a philosophical approach to politics and societal life, fundamentally promotes individual rights and freedoms. In my understanding, this ideology has been instrumental in advancing significant social movements, such as the civil rights movement, women’s rights, and the protection of children from abuse and exploitation. This underscores the positive impact of liberalism in fostering justice and equality, particularly for the oppressed, underprivileged, and marginalized groups in society.
Growing up in South Africa under apartheid has profoundly shaped my belief in justice for these vulnerable populations. Then, through travel to countries in the Middle East, South America, and Southeast Asia, the stark realities of systemic oppression and discrimination have reinforced my conviction that individual rights and freedoms are essential for achieving social justice and equity.
However, my engagement with a biblical faith has challenged liberalism and introduced a critical perspective as well. Within this framework, I have understood the argument that an excessive emphasis on individual rights can undermine the cohesion and stability of society. I believe that prioritizing individual freedoms, without balancing this with what is best for the whole, erodes the foundational relationships and values that hold the fabric of society together. Complex social issues, such as abortion, euthanasia, and the disintegration of an orthodox sexual ethic, are often cited as manifestations of the potential pitfalls of liberalism.
Politically, I believe that individual rights and freedoms should held in tension with acting in the best interest of the whole. But more importantly, from a biblical perspective, I also believe that none of the human frameworks that have been developed can truly address the ills of society, because human beings need to be redeemed and transformed by Christ. More on that in a moment.
Next, I will examine how reading Deneen affirmed my beliefs.
My Beliefs Affirmed
While I’m not politically minded or motivated, I have experienced a change in receptivity to biblical values. It has become particularly challenging for church leaders to navigate politically charged issues that contradict and undermine biblical teaching. In the past, it seemed as if people were content to agree to disagree on issues. Now, disagreement is perceived as discrimination and hate speech. Pastors must, increasingly, be able to teach biblical truth while at the same time speaking to a hostile culture.
Deneen affirms what I have believed but not been able to articulate. That is, our society has become increasingly intolerant and controlling despite political claims that we value freedom and diversity. Deneen states, “A political philosophy that was launched to foster greater equity, defend a pluralist tapestry of different cultures and beliefs, protect human dignity, and, of course, expand liberty, in practice generates titanic inequality, enforces uniformity and homogeneity, fosters material and spiritual degradation, and undermines freedom.”[1]
Secondly, Dineen affirms my beliefs about liberalism’s misunderstanding of human freedom. He writes, “Liberalism rejects the ancient conception of liberty as the learned capacity of human beings to conquer the slavish pursuit of base and hedonistic desires.”[2] Rather, he has noted that the understanding of freedom for the individual is the unrestrained pursuit of inner desires. [3] Rather than practicing restraint of desire as a virtue, our culture elevates the pursuit of desire as the ultimate virtue. It seems that our culture will claim that people are only free when they stay true to their inner desires and pursue them fully. Peek at social media to obtain a view of what is celebrated.
Next, I will explore how my beliefs have been challenged by Deneen.
My Beliefs Challenged
I believe that liberal democracy is probably still the best construct that we have in a fallen world. Liberal democracy, characterized by free and fair elections, the protection of individual rights, and the rule of law, has some ability to promote political stability, economic development, and social justice. Liberal democracy provides a framework for accountability and transparency, allowing people to participate in the political process and hold their leaders accountable. While it is not without its challenges, there has been a modicum of benefit compared to other ideological approaches. I believe that it is Imperfect, but the best we have.
Yet, Deneen calls for the emergence of a superior political ideology that would replace liberalism while still recognizing the achievements of liberalism.[4] While not unrealistic, he doesn’t seem to propose what that could be. I appreciated the challenge to my beliefs, but I would have appreciated a more concrete solution.
Finally, I want to look at my ultimate hope in the face of liberalism or any other political ideology.
A Gospel-centred View
While I do believe we need some political construct in a fallen world, our ultimate hope is not in the emergence of another flawed political ideology. Rather, I want to center my hope for our world in Jesus, the true Messiah and hope of all the nations. In the gospel of Luke, Jesus emerged from his temptation in the wilderness, went to a synagogue in his hometown and read the passage from Isaiah that is quoted at the beginning of this blog. Stunningly he proclaimed, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.” (Luke 4.21)
One could easily mistake Jesus’ proclamation as a political agenda. However, the message and ministry of Jesus were profoundly linked to God’s agenda for all nations, the Messiah had come to bring grace and mercy through himself.[5] In his Kingdom Manifesto, recorded in Matthew chapters 5-7, Jesus calls for the transformation of individuals who become transforming agents in the world. Real freedom and justice are not achieved through a political ideology but are found in him. Regardless of which flawed political system we find ourselves in, the way to human flourishing is found in Him.
[1] Patrick J. Deneen, Why Liberalism Failed, Kindle (New Haven ; London: Yale University Press, 2018), 3.
[2] Deneen, 37.
[3] Deneen, 37.
[4] Deneen, 183.
[5] N. T. Wright, Luke for Everyone, 2nd ed (London : Louisville, KY: SPCK ; Westminster John Knox Press, 2004), 48.
About the Author
Graham English
I was born in Cape Town, South Africa 30 minutes from Table Mountain, the Indian Ocean and the Atlantic Ocean. My family immigrated to Vancouver, Canada where I spent my teen years, met Wendy, and got married. We now live on the Canadian prairies in northern Alberta. I think God has a sense of humour. I'm a follower of Jesus, work in leadership and church development, love my family and walk a lot.16 responses to “The Imperfect Human System”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Thanks for your post Graham, I resonated with much of it. How have you seen pastors navigate biblical teaching on the failings of democracy well? Any tips?
Ryan, I think that our pastors struggle to navigate this well. We either err on the sides of disengagement or enculturation. I am not suggesting that it’s easy. I think Jesus and the Powers by Wright and Bird offers some good suggestions, particularly of engaging with the powers to be a transforming kingdom influence.
Thank you, Graham, for sharing your beliefs.
What potential solutions or alternative political ideologies could address the challenges identified by Deneen, particularly regarding the balance between individual rights and community well-being in a liberal democracy?
Thanks, Shela. I would like to think that we can regain a better balance of these two that seemed to exist in the past. I’m not sure that we can backstep to the past.
I also wonder if our society could actually think in nuanced terms of polarity mapping Individual Freedoms vs. Corporate Wellbeing. It seems that we have shifted so far to individualism.
I found this article that listed the “happiest people in the world”. Interestingly the top 4 countries are Scandanavian and Norway comes in at #7. It might be worth investigating their political systems.
Hi Graham, I appreciated reading about your background in South Africa, travels, and the stark realities you have witnessed between systemic oppression and individual rights and freedoms. These experiences definitely put things into perspective. I agree with you that there are no perfect human frameworks that will cure all ills. In your position in the C&MA, have you observed liberalism’s impact on ideals and methods used cross-culturally?
Elysse, thanks for reading and for your thoughtful question.
I wonder if some of the impact of this is really being felt at the level of recruitment. It seems that in a Liberal Democracy, in which rights and freedoms are paramount that people are less likely to respond to a call that would benefit the greater good of humanity. On a positive note, I think that Alliance missions has become much more wholistic. We have some amazing projects that focus on a balance of community development and evangelism.
Hi Graham, Thank you for your thoughts. I appreciate you pointing back to our Gospel-driven call to be transformed individuals who can be “transforming agents.” What are ways that Christian leaders can model this and call others to this journey in a “hostile” culture?
Thanks Kari, you model this well.
Sacrificially living for the sake of the gospel rather than building our own empires would be one of the ways that we can model this for our people. Working collaborative with people rather than heroic and independent leadership would model this well.
In essence, leaders who help others flourish through radical service might be one of the best ways we can demonstrate this.
Graham,
I appreciate your perspective on this an a citizen of the 51st state of America while being born in South Africa.
What aspects of liberal democracies do you see working? Are there aspects of our democracies that are in line with the gospel-centered perspective you (and I) both affirm?
Adam, I love that. You are welcome to join this state any time you like.
What do I see working? (from a Canadian perspective)
– people are mostly able to think and act freely – although that’s up for debate
– a high value on education and equal opportunity
– equality of religion – although that’s up for debate
– voting rights and privileges
What is gospel-centered? (From a Canadian Perspective_
– people on the margins are cared for and given opportunities to flourish.
– people still caring for their neighbours
Graham, thanks for this article. This may seem a little nit-picky, but I’m intrigued. You write, “Rather than practicing restraint of desire as a virtue, our culture elevates the pursuit of desire as the ultimate virtue.” Yet we know – or I’ve been taught – that desire is the fuel for spiritual formation. And we believe that each of us is precious – as an individual – to the Lord.
I’m wondering what you think about where the line might be between our desires as holy (“Jesus said, ‘What do you want me to do for you?'”) and desires that are anti-thetical to the concept that Deneen strives to get across?
Hi Debbie, that is not “nit-picky”. I appreciate the comment, along with your desire for clarity. It’s a great question and one I wrestle with.
I agree with you that our desires are a fuel for spiritual formation. On the other hand I’m aware that when desires become self-focused and not under the control of the Holy Spirit they can be destructive.
I’m thinking specifically of Galatians 5 : 13 You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh[a]; rather, serve one another humbly in love. 14 For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”[b] 15 If you bite and devour each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.
16 So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17 For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever[c] you want. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.
Putting to death the sinful nature and being filled with the Spirit and led by the Spirit are the key to our transformation so that we can “love our neighbour” rather than doing whatever we want.
I think there is some tension in this as we think about desire.
Hi Graham, thanks so much for your post – very well written and thought out!
You said: “I believe that prioritizing individual freedoms, without balancing this with what is best for the whole, erodes the foundational relationships and values that hold the fabric of society together.”
Thanks for this thought – this is exactly what I’ve been thinking but not had the words to say. This is indeed the problem with liberalism. How do you help others (even Christians) to balance individual freedoms with thinking about what is best for the whole?
That’s a good question, Christy.
In my opinion, church leaders need to model a non-heroic, servanthood posture first. People need to experience someone who empowers others and who can cultivate collective leadership.
In our society we need leaders to practice self-differentiated leadership so that they don’t give in to the whims and demands of individuals but are able to keep the good of the whole in mind (afterall that is what governing is all about).
Thank you, Graham, your post has illustrated a meaningful way of leadership map-making. I have learned a lot from it. Would you say that the ‘unrestrained desire’ within liberalism is the cause of the failure that Deneen is referring to?
Thanks for your comments, Noel. I see our unrestrained and, will also add here, misdirected desire as part of it. Deneen wrote that in the past people viewed freedom as the ability to restrain personal desire in order to act for the good of the whole. However, we have shifted toward viewing freedom as the ability to act on inner desire even if it is detrimental to the good of the whole. I’m, still digesting this thought, and wrestle with some of it (see comments to Debbie above).