Liberalism and Christianity

Le Regard Libre N° 16 - Sébastien Oreiller

Liberalism and Christianity. At first glance, the link may seem surprising. This doctrine, first philosophical then political and economic, is intrinsically linked in the collective unconscious to the very idea of the pursuit of economic well-being, if not, more recently, to that of economic predation against the weakest. So how can liberalism be related to Christianity, when it's harder for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle? If the two currents are related, it's because they are both based on the individual, albeit within certain limits.

The individual before God. The Christian is a son of God; as such, the Lord calls him and loves him with a special relationship. This is a departure from the pagan, and especially Roman, idea of a religion of the public square, where only sacrifices to the altar count, and where faith is of no importance. Christianity is a religion of the heart. When it comes to the individual versus the community, the relationship is murkier. On the one hand, Christ, like Socrates, is the victim of a legitimate tribunal; he questions the Law of Moses. But he rejects those who see him as King of the Jews, rejects revolt and recommends paying taxes to the emperor. «Render to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's.» A doctrine of respect for authorities that contrasts with liberalism. Similarly, Saint Paul preached obedience to slaves.

Freedom and responsibility

Christianity therefore enshrines the freedom of the individual, but also his responsibility towards his brothers and sisters. «What have you done with your brother?» Individual freedom is not selfishness. Perhaps inherited from Greek thought, the Christian clearly has a responsibility to the community. But this community is rarely that of men, as Saint Augustine quickly reminds us with his dichotomy between the city of God and the city of the world.

Economic activity is a source of debate. The recurring idea is that the Christian should bear fruit; moreover, as in the parable of the workers of the eleventh hour, Christ affirms the right to enjoy one's property as one sees fit; in that of the unfaithful steward, he advises using wealth for a good cause, even if that wealth is unjust. But this does not mean indulging in deviant economic activities: the merchants of the temple are bitterly scourged for their greed. In short, Christians may acquire wealth, but they may not enjoy it. developed by Max Weber, especially for Protestantism.

Conservative-Catholic and Liberal-Protestant

Starting from this idea of the individual's responsibility to the community, it's clear that the Protestant and Catholic approaches differ. While the hierarchical ecclesiastical community disappears in Protestantism in favor of a civil society where it's easier to use one's wealth as one wishes, the Catholic retains a responsibility first and foremost to the Church.

Liberalism is therefore a rather Protestant trend, as shown by the clear division in our country's history between Catholic conservatives and Protestant liberals. While Protestant Anglo-Saxons are almost indifferent to money, the subject remains taboo in Catholicism. Protestants hoard money when they make a fortune, and use it as they see fit for the community; Catholics give alms to their parish, or buy a statue for their church. Latin countries are therefore more spendthrift and ostentatious, which perhaps helps to explain the difference in wealth between Europe's Latin countries and the Anglo-Saxon and Germanic ones.

A major difference: the condemnation of predation

Liberalism thus shares with Christianity a concern for the independence of the individual and respect for his or her choices, while emphasizing his or her role in the community. However, it is necessary to draw a clear line between what liberalism admits, at least tacitly, and what Christianity strictly denounces: predation. While the sometimes perverse effects of globalization often appear to liberals as a necessary evil, if not an expression of individual will, Christians deplore the deaths of drug addicts, and the enslavement of women and children to satisfy their sexual urges.

Above all, «permitting» does not solve the problem by erasing the moral fault that affects the population. A Christian's perspective is always one of truth and the search for what is right, and it is clear that tolerating vice does not solve the problem of vice, even if we struggle to implement policies. The argument that we should deny ourselves moral sanction on the pretext that prohibition has failed to bear fruit is morally inadmissible. It opens the door to relativism and political laziness. Elected representatives, who act for the good of the people, need to think about what they are putting in their hands, especially when it often concerns the weakest and most disadvantaged.

Write to the author: sebastien.oreiller@netplus.ch