I had lunch last week with a friend in his thirties who is ready anytime, anywhere, for a lively conversation about the ills of liberal political thought in America, particularly if it involves comparing the President to arsenic. I said, “Define liberalism for me.” He fixed a serious brow and launched into two or three paragraphs of politicians on the far left in government who drive him crazy.
“That’s not what I mean. I mean, give it a definition. Define liberalism.” That was surprisingly difficult for him.
“You tell me,” he said. I said, “It means a loosening of rules that are attached to some standard. Liberalism always implies a standard and one’s view of that standard. Without a standard, there is no such thing as liberalism.” He was listening, so I went on. “Furthermore, I believe that by the time a person is 6 or 7 years old, it is pretty much determined which he will be in life, a liberal or a conservative” (I wasn’t sure I could sustain that last part, but I knew it would provoke him a little). “The greatest determining factor is parents. They can rear children who find freedom in a good system of rules and boundaries, or children who find rules merely a barrier to a better life.”
He disagreed. He had come from a home void of conservative rearing, and yet became a strong conservative himself. “I yield the point,” I said, “but every conservative got it from somewhere, having been influenced profoundly by someone early in life.” We agreed.
The term liberalism, whether in politics or religion or any other arena presupposes a standard. A man who is liberal seeks to loose where the standard has bound. In America, we have taken the concept of liberty and perverted it to mean tolerance. That’s the main reason that the words liberal and conservative seem so hollow to people. It is impossible for one to be conservative or liberal without a point of reference, some standard by which we can judge. To reference conservative or liberal without a standard is like using the words large or small without saying that you refer to elephants, fish, people, or tractors. When in America we still use the terms liberal and conservative, without agreeing on a standard, liberals win the day. If indeed there is no standard, then people should be free to live without anyone criticizing their thinking or actions.
Americans often have a misunderstanding of American liberty. It is true that the Declaration of Independence includes the words "All men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to insure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Observe though that even in these words our forefathers saw this liberty for which they were willing to die as something which included government. A standard.
During the 2000 campaign, Al Gore touted the popular view among many liberals when he promised if he were elected that he would appoint judges "who understand that our Constitution is a living and breathing document," people who understood that "it was intended by our founders to be interpreted in the light of the constantly evolving experience of the American people."
That’s liberalism. The standard, in this case the U.S. Constitution, must be flexible enough that I can change it to do as I please. But our forefathers never meant for liberty to mean “freedom from any standard.” In the United States, we use the term liberty, but many misunderstand it to mean “morally neutral.” They don’t get it. The standard is missing.
Liberalism is, in the long run, a flawed view. When is a locomotive more free—when it’s chugging down the tracks, or when it leaves the tracks and plods off into some meadow? Likewise, men are most free when living within the confines of valid laws, constitutions, and ultimately the Word of their Creator. This is from good authority:
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience (Romans 13:1-4, ESV).
Liberty and liberalism sound alike, but they are very different. If every man were a true liberal, anarchy would result and ultimately no one would have liberty. Imagine what would happen on the NFL football field if the officiators decided to be liberal with the official rules.
There are Biblical examples of liberalism, none clearer than in Numbers 16. Consider the first three verses and remember that God had chosen Moses as lawgiver to Israel. God made the law; Moses delivered and administered the law.
Now Korah, the son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, and Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab, and On, the son of Peleth, sons of Reuben, took men: And they rose up before Moses, with certain of the children of Israel, two hundred and fifty princes of the assembly, famous in the congregation, men of renown: And they gathered themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said unto them, “Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them: wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the congregation of the Lord?” (KJV).
The argument was that the standard for Moses being the lawgiver was merely that he was holy. That wasn’t true. The standard was God’s Word. Moses was lawgiver because God chose him for that job. Korah was liberal in that he tried to find a way to loosen what God had bound. “Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them.” Was the liberal smoke-and-mirrors argument to get the congregation’s focus off God’s standard? They fought the standard that made Moses the leader, and, in their liberalism, sought freedom from the rules.
One more closing note: As Christians we must guard against ways of thinking that fight or deviate from the New Testament as our final standard. Ultimately, liberalism from that standard is the most serious matter of all, because the consequences are eternal. Jesus said, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me” (John 14:6).
