Liberalism and Orthodoxy: a search for mutual Apprehension

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.