Reinventing Liberal Christianity

by Theo Hobson

In this provocative book Theo Hobson addresses the current crisis of liberal Christianity. In past years liberal Christianity challenged centuries of authoritarian tradition and had great political influence. It played a major role in the founding of the United States and gave rise to the secular liberalism that we take for granted. But liberal Christianity today is widely dismissed as a watering-down of the faith, and more conservative forms of Christianity are increasingly dominant. Can the liberal Christian tradition recover its influence?

Hobson puts forth a bold theory about why liberal Christianity collapsed and how it can be reinvented. He argues that a simple revival is not possible, because liberal Christianity consists of two traditions -- a good tradition that must be salvaged and a bad tradition that must be repudiated. Reinventing Liberal Christianity untangles these two traditions with a fascinating survey of Christian thought from the Reformation to the present and, further, aims to transform liberal Christianity through the rediscovery of faith and ritual.

304 pages, Hardcover

First published September 30, 2013

Reviews

[Edward]

I picked up this book not knowing what to expect, but it turned out to be quite interesting, being in large part a history of church-state relations thoughout the centuries. The author points out that you’d think people who are concerned about Christianity being dominated by fundamentalism, legalism, and reaction would articulate their opposition in rational discourse, otherwise known as “liberal” Christianity. But this has generally been flawed because as the rational aspects of Christianity developed, it lost what made it unique in the first place, its cultic ceremonial practices and their mythic appeal .

Hobson is principally concerned with Protestant Christianity which in its reaction against what it considered to be superstitious Catholic practices went to the other extreme and threw out most ritual practices as a manipulative tool of clerical power. Historically, there was some justification for such charges. We are presently in a state, though, where a liberal humanism has replaced liberal religion (“liberal” in this context meaning close to “ rational”), and as the Enlightenment of the l8th cetnury gained power, rationality meant more and more that the religious non-rational elments became superfluous.

For all of its history the church has existed alongside the state, either in opposition to it, or with the conversion of Constantine in the 4th century, in cooperation with it. Religion for centuries was seen as a necessity for morality, and in that sense, only a religious person could be a good citizern. Atheists could not be tolerated as an atheist had no loyalty to the order reprsented by the church and the state.

This idea was particularly undermined by the American experiment of the late lth century, one that made the “wall” of separation between church and state one of its guiding principles. Opponents were appalled - without the recognition of Christian morality, any country would devolve into anarchy and ultimate ruin. On the other hand, Jefferson and his followers saw the guiding principles of Christianity being not supernaturally inspired, but merely rules of behavior which could be determined logically and rationally. The role of the state, then, was to be neutral and not allow any religion a place in the public sphere, rather than provide public tolerance for beneficial different religions.

Of course, there was always reactions against this tendency. It would make of religion not just a rational process, but one that demanded an element of some form of personal “faith” in God,. This belief, although possible to b partially e defended in conceptual and rational terms, has nothing to do with doctrine, but with what happens in a person’s emotions and psyche. Besides, the argument is that “reason” is not always to be trusted. Democracy, for example, puts great emphasis on the rule of the majority, but what if a majority favors barbaric behavior, such as happened in Nazi Germany? Who can withstand this pressure except the type of Christian who is motivated by an autonomy which is immune to clever reasoning, no matter how “rational” it may sound.

A secular liberal state, what we have today in America idealizes tolerance and freedom. But for what purpose? Our reliance on market capitalism spawns the choice of empty pleasures which have nothing to do with any sense of the common good, a coming together of people. Hobson feels such a sense of good is at the heart of cultic Christian practices. The liberal secular state with its emphasis upon freedom, is not necessarily a bad thing, but the old concerns about it tending toward anarchy of individualism has some basis.

Hobson stresses that it’s not going to be easy, in fact will be extremely complex, but he feels that there’s a real need of religious rituals that engage the secular world instead of alienating it. What these would be or how they’d come about is unknown, but without them, we’re worse off. The closest thing America has to ritual intensity that unites people is the passion that they feel for sports, but this is ephemeral; what’s needed is a religious equivalent. Where can that be found? “God knows” are the last words of the book.

[Jen · Rating 2 out of 5]

Based on the summary and title I was expecting a book that outlines how Christianity can chart a course for the future that avoids secularism on one side and rigid fundamentalism on the other. Instead, I got 270 pages of history of "liberal" Christianity and 5 pages of a "shrug" from the author on what we should do next. While the theological history was interesting, it ultimately doesn't make me feel more informed about the future of the church.

[Kyle · Rating 1 out of 5]

The book sounded interesting, but was quite disappointed. Hobson gives the history of liberal Christianity in detail, pointing out the myriad of ways it has fallen short, in his opinion. That is not necessarily a criticism, as I agree with much of what he says. My disappointments fall under three things: He needlessly (in my opinion) uses large words, perhaps to come across as a more scholarly work, but could have gotten his point across while making the book easier to read. He also focuses heavily on the negative (i.e. what various people/denominations/governments/etc. did wrong) and hardly at all on positive contributions or solutions. Which brings me to my final disappointment, which was what shot my rating down. He ends the book with a few "ifs" (such as, "If the church would do this, then...",)and then comes out and finishes with (paraphrasing) "Can we come up with things that will reinvent liberal Christianity for the better? Only God knows." Really? He could at least come up with some suggestions that could carry the conversation further. It feels like I read half of a book only to find that the author died before he could finish.

[Robert D. Cornwall · Rating 1 out of 5]

This was an odd book -- didn't finish it -- but focus is on the church's relationship with the liberal state. To put it in 18th century English terms, he seems to be advocating Erastianism -- where the church serves the state.

[R · Rating 3 out of 5]

A useful overview of historic church/state relations, but it really didn't have a "third act".