Writer of Fancy: The Playful Piety of Jane Austen

Solomon Among the Postmoderns

The Baptized Body

1 & 2 Kings
Brazos Theological Commentary

The Promise Of His Appearing: An Exposition Of Second Peter

A Great Mystery: Fourteen Wedding Sermons

Deep Comedy: Trinity, Tragedy, And Hope In Western Literature

Miniatures & Morals: The Christian Novels of Jane Austen

The Priesthood of the Plebs: A Theology of Baptism

A Son To Me: An Exposition of 1 & 2 Samuel

Against Christianity

From Silence to Song: The Davidic Liturgical Revolution

Ascent to Love: A Guide to Dante's Divine Comedy

Blessed Are the Hungry: Meditations on the Lord's Supper

A House For My Name: A Survey of the Old Testament

Heroes of the City of Man: A Christian Guide to Select Ancient Literature

Brightest Heaven of Invention: A Christian Guide To Six Shakespeare Plays

Wise Words: Family Stories That Bring the Proverbs to Life

The Kingdom and the Power: Rediscovering the Centrality of the Church

« Previous Post | Next Post »
« Previous post in category | Next post in category »

Politics: Liberalism, again

Jim Rogers of Texas A&M responds to my posts about liberalism, where I quoted a couple of passages from a recent essay by John Milbank.  Rogers writes:

“I do think that there is probably a liberal anthropology that can be criticized in a way similar to Milbank.  But sometimes I wonder if both liberals and anti-liberals impute too much theoretical weight ‘anthropology’) to what is really just a very practical and non-controversial intellectual move.

“I think what Locke (and Rawls, and perhaps others, although not all) are doing with the ’state of nature’ or the “veil of ignorance” is asking the question - what institutions (or “constitution”) would we adopt if we were concerned about promoting social welfare generally, and not our own individual interests.  So they make a move that any of us would make: ‘Well, what might I advocate if I didn’t know I was middle class; if I didn’t know I was a 21st century American, if I didn’t know I was Anglo,’ etc.

“Even the Bible invites this sort of counterfactual thinking. When it tells judges not to distort decisions for the rich, it’s saying, ‘Set aside what you think this person can do for you, and limit your decisions to the pertinent facts and principles.’

“To be sure, I think some liberals do take it too far, and themselves mistake the instrumental usefulness of the counterfactual for a real ‘anthropology.; But their mistake doesn’t excuse the anti-liberals who think that in attacking this faux-anthropology of the too-literal-minded liberal that they’ve grabbed onto the center of liberalism. Instead, they may have merely followed the deadend of not-so-clever liberals who themselves mistook form for substance by thinking that liberal theory really requires deracinated individuals to order to make its argument.”