LIBERALISM AND ORTHODOXY: A SEARCH FOR MUTUAL APPREHENSION.

• Author: Paradise, Brandon

INTRODUCTION

This Article seeks to evaluate and contextualize recently intensifying Christian critiques of liberalism's intellectual and moral claims. Much of this recent critique has been from Catholic and Protestant quarters. (1) Christianity's third major branch--Orthodox Christianity--has not played a prominent role in current critiques of liberalism. This Article seeks to help fill this void in the literature. In helping to fill this void, it contributes to understanding how liberalism fits with one of the world's most ancient Christian traditions.

The Article begins by disambiguating the terms Orthodoxy and liberalism. After identifying each body of thought's foundational commitments, it notes that Orthodoxy endorses the advancement of ideals that are today widely associated with liberalism, namely, the protection of human dignity and the advancing of human rights and liberties. However, differences in philosophical anthropology drive differences in Orthodox and liberal understandings of the nature of evil and suffering and differences over the degree to which liberal ideals can be realized in our world. In particular, whereas liberalism appears to hold that human beings have capacities necessary for the realization of liberal ideals at the societal level and can thus act virtuously so as to contribute to societal well-being, (2) Orthodoxy maintains that liberal ideals can only be partially realized in humanity's postlapsarian (i.e., after the Fall) condition. (3) Furthermore, Orthodoxy holds that maximal though partial realization of liberal ideals requires the presence of human beings who, with divine aid, are in the process of being refashioned to take on the mind of Christ, thereby becoming capable of reliably manifesting Christian love. (4)

The Article argues that although liberalism and Orthodoxy differ over philosophical anthropology and over whether liberal ideals are fully or partially realizable, Orthodoxy and liberalism are nonetheless compatible with respect to their mutual commitment to advancing the safeguarding of dignity and human freedom. The Article notes that although antireligious forms of liberalism appear to render liberal and Orthodoxy antagonists, antireligious liberalism is a mere historical contingency. In conclusion, the Article notes that the patristic, "two societal orders" approach to the relation between church and state premised upon the theory of unitive action remains relevant today to fostering mutual apprehension, appreciation, and collaboration between liberal states and the Orthodox Church.

1. LIBERALISM AND ORTHODOXY: ELEMENTS AND ASSUMPTIONS

   We now disambiguate the terms liberalism and Orthodoxy. (5) We approach both liberalism and Orthodoxy as doctrines whose aim is to conceptualize conditions for human well-being and whose end or eschaton is an intentional association of dignified and free individuals. We first delineate the foundational elements (6) of liberalism, (i.e., free exchange, representational government, and rights to be treated equally) along with some of its secondary characteristics (e.g., emphasis on innovation, science, etc.). We then disambiguate Orthodoxy. The basic elements of Orthodoxy are tied to spiritual freedom and representation in the court of God's holy. Its secondary characteristics pertain to the commitment to tradition, faith in the ineffable, etc. Notwithstanding differences in fundamental principles and secondary characteristics, both liberalism and Orthodoxy concern societal interactions, with both theories actualizing themselves in different forms of intentional associations, that is, the state and the church. The realization of both Orthodoxy and liberalism in the form of intentional associations permits us to think of them in terms of compatibility. However, there is a deeper connection between the two as both Orthodoxy and liberalism are founded upon eschatological ideals.

   1. Disambiguating Liberalism

      What is liberalism? This question is not easy to answer. There is no commonly acknowledged definition of liberalism. (7) An effort to clearly define liberalism entails answering a range of questions. For example, perhaps liberalism is a political theory or, rather, (many) theories, of some kind. Or perhaps liberalism is something more than political theory, as it also entails various economic and legal commitments? Or is liberalism merely a way of thinking about an ideal society that promotes human dignity, freedom, rights, etc.? Or is liberalism something more than theory/theories? It is, perhaps, also a kind of intentional association that draws together people bound up by commitments to certain foundational ideas or ideals. (8) If liberalism is an intentional association, what is the theory or set of ideas that sustains the intentional association it constructs? What is the goal of this association? Is it to actualize itself in the form of a state or, perhaps, some global cosmopolitan community established upon "liberal" foundations? Answers to these questions are crucial for our understanding of this phenomenon which exercises great influence over people's minds and gives direction to or finds its political instantiation in some modern states and associations.

      Liberalism is a modern phenomenon which weaves together a few threads: economic, political, legal, and perhaps ethical and metaphysical threads, and ties itself to an implicit commitment to human flourishing. (9) It incorporates the idea of economic freedom with the principle of representational political power (preferably, democracy) together with the notion of individual rights. (10) Liberalism's origins can be traced to the period of the Reformation or perhaps the Enlightenment and to the agenda of freeing human beings from abusive authority (both, secular and ecclesiastical) operating under the veil of divine sanction and presenting themselves as divinely ordained. (11) It was historically marked off by the quest of liberating individuals from the powers of empire, state, church, etc. (12) It is associated with insistence on the power and authority of human reason and the search for an egalitarian society--a kind of community of minds and wills equalized, harmonized and flourishing. (13)

      "Liberalism" as a modern phenomenon, (14) however, has its precursor in classical and late antique theories. (15) The very origin of the term leads us back to the classical ideas of freedom and virtuous character. The ideas of liberality and democracy are classical. The idea of rights is early modern but can be seen in the classical notion of justice insofar as the latter secures such foundational rights as possessing, exchanging, and exchanging on an equal basis.

      In a sense, the modern liberal ideas of free exchange, representational government, and rights are interrelated; the terms are conceptually linked insofar as there may not be any rights secured unless a political system is representational, protective of basic liberties, and established upon principles of free exchange, and the other way around. Thus, a liberal treatise may be articulated primarily in the language of rights or emphasize the language of representational authority, etc. However, once a key element of liberal theory along with the terms designating it is invoked, all other terms are often implied. Liberalism's tendency to use terms interrelatedly or even interchangeably is not unique; the same tendency can also be found in the linguistic peculiarities of classical thought. For instance, the term nomas stood for both law and custom and nomisma for money or means of exchange and equalization of transactions. (16) The idea of equality in exchange and the commensurability of goods, etc., in the minds of the ancients, thus entailed the basic rights to acquire, possess, trade freely and be treated equally while exchanging, and vice versa.

      Classical thought, while lifting up the idea of freedom or liberty, assumed that liberty at its root core is economic. This is seen in the primary attribution of the terms "liberal" and "liberality" to the virtue of disbursement of assets. (17) Hence, one is liberal when one remains equidistant from extremes, being equally immune from overspending (prodigality) and underspending (stinginess) but handling assets freely and profitably so as to enhance the material prosperity of all and each. (18) Similarly, in modern liberalism we find that economic, political, legal and ethical concerns are intertwined, with economic concerns being primary as the latter entail other concerns. Like classical thought, modern speculative efforts to understand societal freedom (either silently or vocally) assume--via the priority of distributive justice in contemporary liberal theory--that the possession of property is a minimal requirement of having a share in society, that is, of having full legal rights, being treated equally, and hence being free. (19)

      In antiquity the possession of property was considered equal to liberty, with economic transactions being considered causative of society or association. Aristotle thus states, "it is by exchange that they [i.e., people] hold together." (20) Economic liberty and self-sufficiency support all other liberties as derivative. The virtue of liberality was understood as pertaining to the ratio of disbursement of assets once acquired, (21) and the virtue of justice was apprehended as pertaining to exchange and transaction. (22) Exchange is facilitated by means of currency, which acts "as a measure, makes goods commensurate and equates them; for neither would there have been association if there were not exchange, nor exchange if there were not equality, nor equality if there were not commensurability." (23) Similarly, modern liberal theories silently or vocally prioritize economic concerns. (24)

      The idea of democracy in modern liberalism mainly connotes representational power, thus allowing other forms of government (e.g., monarchy, oligarchy...