A Case for Christian Liberalism

Jonathan Rauch's new book argues that Christianity and liberalism must work together to restore meaning and preserve freedom

Philosophical liberalism is in crisis. Among young Americans, only 47 percent believe it should be legal to say things that offend minority groups. Just over half think democracy is the best form of government. Meanwhile, socialism enjoys majority approval, and a third of young people even view communism favorably. It’s true that youth has always leaned anti-establishment—but these numbers go beyond rebellion. They signal a deeper disillusionment with the liberal order itself: a sense that freedom and prosperity are not enough, and that something essential is missing.

Into this crisis comes political philosopher Jonathan Rauch, with an unlikely solution. In Cross Purposes, Rauch argues that Christianity and liberalism need each other, and that both working together are necessary in order to preserve the freedoms that most of us hold dear. As a gay Jewish atheist, Rauch may strike many as an odd advocate for Christianity; yet while he’s open to the idea that faith is built on mistaken beliefs, he argues that such beliefs are still incredibly prosocial.

In particular, Rauch argues, liberalism on its own struggles to furnish peoples' lives with meaning and depth. As Rauch writes:

"Secular movements have their benefits; I am not here to condemn them. But it turns out that none of them is capable of replacing the great religions where anchoring moral codes, maintaining durable communities, and transmitting values are concerned. As Jessica Grose wrote in the New York Times in 2023, paraphrasing the sociologist Phil Zuckerman, 'A soccer team can’t provide spiritual solace in the face of death, it probably doesn’t have a weekly charitable call and there’s no sense of connection to a heritage that goes back generations.'"

I've been talking to young people on the Dissident Right (an authoritarian and mostly-online movement on the right), and in their anger and frustration I've seen the limits of liberalism on its own to give us “the good life.” As Dissident Right author Hunter Ash explains, when talking about why Ye's new song "Heil Hitler" is resonating with folks in this movement:

"Kanye does us the favor of being quite explicit about his thought process in this song, so minimal extrapolation is needed: despite all his money and fame, he can’t see his kids, a primal human need. So he’s declared war on the entire postwar liberal order.

[...]

"Why is it resonating? Because many people feel the same way. The liberal order has failed them. And worse, it sneers at their concerns."

Liberalism gives us freedom and enormous material prosperity, but it turns out that, if these things are necessary for our happiness, they are not sufficient for it. In addition to freedom, we need community. In addition to material prosperity, we need meaning and purpose. It's not enough to earn more money than most people who have ever lived, if while we're earning this money our lives feel lonely and empty.

Rauch argues that "thick" Christianity can fill the holes in our lives that liberalism cannot. He holds up as an example the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, whose members go on mission trips, volunteer, care for each other, and spend hours every week pouring over theological texts. They live in close-knit communities whose members rely on each other and freely give to each other, all wrapped in a faith that offers them meaning and hope for what happens after they die. All of this helps them to live happy and joyful lives. People living happy and joyful lives, in turn, are much less eager to wage war on the liberal order in which they live.

Rauch makes a strong case that liberalism needs Christianity, but my one quibble with his book is that I don't think he makes a strong enough case that Christianity needs liberalism. He argues that Christianity falls short when it comes to answering the question of theodicy (“Why would a good God allow evil?”) and on explaining how we can understand the world if God exists outside of nature and can perform miracles. The problem of theodicy is one that Christianity struggles with, but Rauch admits that liberalism can't really give us a better answer as to why evil exists. The problem of how to understand the world is salient, and most Christian thinkers are indebted to the scientific method to explain concepts like gravity and enable scientific advancements; but every one of us who has experienced miracles in our own lives also sees that there's more to understanding the world than what can be measured by science.

That said, I do think there's a strong case that Christianity needs liberalism, even if Rauch didn't make it. The great virtue of liberalism is that it is a system of perpetual self-improvement. It offers us a powerful answer to the question "what if we're wrong?"

What if we're wrong in believing that our preferred politician will be good for the country? In that case, political liberalism offers us elections, separation of powers, and a Constitution that limits the power of politicians—all of which are designed to limit the damage that a bad politician can do and to help us to course-correct as a society.

What if we're wrong that (as people believed for millennia) the sun revolves around the earth? In that case, epistemic liberalism and free speech empower anyone who sees the truth to step in and correct us, so that we as a society can grow closer to the truth.

What if we're wrong that a given product is perfect? In that case, economic liberalism enables competitors to design a better product and so win customers away from companies that serve their customers poorly.

What if those of us who call ourselves Christian are wrong about our faith as a whole, or just our particular denomination or how we interpret a certain verse of the Bible? Then liberalism prevents us from imposing our wrong views on other people, and empowers them to show us the errors of our ways.

Christianity and liberalism need each other. Christianity can offer us the meaning and connection and purpose that liberalism cannot. Liberalism, in turn, offers us a powerful way to course-correct when we're wrong and to continue the eternal work of building a more perfect union. If we can harness the benefits of both, perhaps we can preserve the freedoms that so many of us cherish.

We welcome you to share your thoughts on this piece in the comments below. Click here to view our comment section moderation policy. 

The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of the Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism or its employees.

In keeping with our mission to promote a common culture of fairness, understanding, and humanity, we are committed to including a diversity of voices and encouraging compassionate and good-faith discourse.

We are actively seeking other perspectives on this topic and others. If you’d like to join the conversation, please send drafts to submissions@fairforall.org.