So the Alternative is Lepanto?

Rod needs to add the 2k secular faith option to his Benedict proposal. First he recommends a critique of Islamist terrorism on the grounds that secularism is responsible for excluding faith from politics:

It’s embarrassing for liberals to admit that liberalism offers religious freedom only to those religions that adhere to its central tenants. It’s awkward to admit that liberalism limits in advance the form any given religion may take (pray, but not here, believe, but don’t preach, hold ethical principles, but pay for others to violate them, interpret your Scriptures, but not radically, etc.). The liberal society wants to maintain that it accepts all religious beliefs with equal validity, and is thus forced, when a particular religious belief radically rejects the central doctrines of liberalism, to conclude that it is not really a religion after all, only a “group of thugs.” Liberalism, in short, does not want to admit that it is an exclusive theology, and thus does not want admit that it is rejecting a definite “other theology” — a rival set of beliefs about God and man.

Liberalism denies religious groups from dictating policy? So the alternative is a confessional state that locks up blasphermers and fights wars for sacred causes? Rod seems to think so (which is not unusual for an Eastern Orthodox guy who may track Constantinian than he realizes):

Marc says that the theology of liberalism cannot defeat ISIS; only real, committed theology can — first, he says, “the active promotion of a better theology in the form of the Quietist Salafis. . . . Marc is not claiming that Catholic apologists can turn the hearts and minds of Muslims already committed to ISIS, and make Christians of them. He is claiming that Catholics who really believe in their faith — not MTD Catholics, but the real deal — have a lot to say to Muslims in the West who are alienated from secular liberalism. Marc makes the important and overlooked point that truly believing Catholics (and, I would say, Protestant and Orthodox Christians too) feel alienated from secular liberalism also. With Catholics, he says, “Of course, there is something less of an obsession with human purity, something more of mercy, but nevertheless, the committed Catholic can, like it or not, sympathize with the ISIS-member’s primary spiritual frustrations.”

So Roman Catholics, Orthodox, conservative Protestants (think theonomists?), and Muslims get rid of the liberal state. And that leaves us where? Crusades? Ottomans conquering Hungary? Ferdinand and Isabella kicking out Muslims? The Thirty Years War?

If Augustine was right, and the earthly city has limited goods, why would residents of the heavenly city think they can make the earthly city a paradise? What about refusing to immanentize the eschaton does Rod not understand? And what about remembering how poorly Christians did when they were “running things”?


4 thoughts on “So the Alternative is Lepanto?

  1. Perhaps there is another alternative. Being intolerant of the intolerant gets pretty complicated. Accusations of intolerance toward pacifists because of their unwillingness to act in a second kingdom as normal “natural law” magistrates tend to be followed up by accusations against the same pacifists as wanting to take over and be sectarian Constantinians.

    I am not saying that DGH has not considered the third alternative of not being agents in that “second kingdom”. I am only saying that Hart has rejected the alternative which refuses both Constantinianism and “liberalism”. Because that “second kingdom” is still liberalism, no matter how much you know about human depravity or about the need for Jesus to come before the next age gets here.

    And for liberalism to “work”, you need those who object to being agents of law to be few in number.

    But is liberalism still “working”? And if it’s not, whose fault is it?

    At least Hart knows that the law which restrains sin is not grace. What is being revealed (apocalypse) is that the laws (even of liberalism) do not restrain sin.

    1. The no does not restrain sin. 2. The no creates sin. 3. The no does not only create a desire for us to do the wrong we did not desire to do before. 4. The no creates a desire for us for us to be saved from the fate or other nations by our doing what the law says to do. 5. The laws of the democratic process have no power to save us. No matter what sacrifices you make for us parasites.

    It’s not our job to tell people who reject the way of Jesus the next best thing to do “next”.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.