ware the word "liberal"

In the last few weeks, a number of clergy (even hierarchs) have been called "liberal" and therefore suspect.

The word "liberal" itself has a lot of meanings, depending on time in history, location, and situation. In the early 20th century in American religious history, "liberal" was utilized as a negative term to describe clergy and academics who, because of their modernist commitments, denied or diminished certain "fundamentals" of the faith.

That use of "liberal" is more stable than the political use of "liberal." This latter usage has changed wildly over the years, so that a "liberal" from a hundred years ago can be (and is) called a "conservative."

Case in point: time was that a "libertarian" like Ayn Rand (or Rand Paul) was known as "liberal," because of their commitment to the cancellation of traditional regulations that conserved the environment (like the commons and park lands) and old-fashioned society (like guilds).

Now, almost unbelievably, a libertarian is commonly called "conservative."

The difficulty -- and I would add, tragic difficulty -- rises when the religious use of "liberal" is mixed with the political use.

If a priest or minister (or bishop) is called "liberal," I need to know which meaning is intended. It is a far, far more serious thing to me that a cleric is theologically or religiously "liberal," in that he militates against (or obfuscates) the tenets of the Nicene Creed, that he might deny the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Redemption by the Cross, the reality of the Sacraments.

It is quite another thing entirely that the cleric might embrace liberal (or conservative) political positions. A hierarch who stands for environmentalism, racial and economic justice might be called "liberal," but a case could be made that in an earlier time he could justifiably be called faithfully conservative.

To make things even more difficult, it should be remembered that there are political positions that are manifestly at variance with Christianity. As patristic writers like Chrysostom, Basil, and the Gregory's repeatedly warned, Christians should not ally themselves to oppressive governmental or economic forms, whether these appear as usury or Strong Men who surround themselves with personality cults.

In effect, if you read me at all, please refrain from even the suggestion that hierarchs and clergy are "liberal" simply because they suggest the use of different spoons in communion, or if they care about the environment or social justice.

In particular, please do not suggest that a priest or a minister or a bishop is anything less than Orthodox simply because he heeds pandemic measures. We can all critique how well the government is doing in managing this unprecedented crisis -- and these critiques must be made, because there really is an Orthodox and prophetic response to the politics of epidemic.

But just as it is correct to hold government and medical authorities to the hard standards of Christian charity, it is at best questionable to engage in the many forms of denial and dismissal of the crisis: it is likely not rational or charitable at all.

Stewardship, justice, and charitable public health are not what makes a liberal (in the sense of anti-traditional Christianity). Denying the deity and salvation of Christ is.

And, perhaps, denying the brotherhood of humanity -- especially if that denial is done in the name of political affiliation.

Comments

[Fr. Jonathan Tobias]

Thank you Matt for your response. You are correct that there are "different strands" in the Orthodox community -- and about particulars there always will be, as long as these differences do not contend against "the mind of Christ," which is completely self-sacrificing.

You are also correct that in current political parlance, a conservative should want to put less power in the hands of authorities, and liberals would entrust the authorities with more. This is a modern definition, because in Christendom (i.e., Byzantine and Roman Catholic civilization until the early 15th century), the government had quite a bit of power (even over the marketplace), and that government could not be called liberal at all.

You suggest that socialism necessitates atheism, and that somehow environmentalism and social/racial justice help bring about socialism and/or atheism.

"Socialism" itself is a term that is complicated. In the early 19th century, when socialism came to the fore, you might be interested to know that there were many models of socialism, and many if not most of them were thoroughly Christian. Only a few -- like Marxism, and later Leninism and Stalinism -- were committed to atheism, founded as they were upon the Marxist dialectic of history, along with its eschatology.

One other thing -- while most people may not identify themselves as polluters in their own right, many Christians in fact oppose any regulation upon corporations that restrict pollution. They do so because they assume that laissez-faire economic theory must be Christian, when in fact this is not historically the case.

[matt s.]

Thank you for your post. It is interesting the different strands in Orthodox thinking. It seems that there is a desire by many to transform American into a more socialist and atheistic society. It seems the two are linked as past examples of socialism necessitated atheism.

It also seems that certain causes, environmentalism, social and racial justice are simply the most effective ways to accomplish the first two goals. What I mean is that most people think we should not pollute the earth, for example, but many people don't think there should be a central planning committee that allocates resources to individuals based on a pollution formula.

It seems dangerous to put more and more control and power into fewer and fewer hands. To me a conservative wants to put less power in the hands of authorities while a liberal, to me, wants to put give authorities wide ranging and nearly absolute power to determine what people should think, do and say.