fbpx

Lessons for America from Europe’s Christian Democracy

The religious right that arose in the United States since the 1970s did so in almost studied neglect of the religiously based governing parties in Europe, the Christian Democrats. Part of this neglect reflects the mixed legacy of Christian Democracy by the 1970s and after; part reflects the nature of Evangelicalism in the United States. In the current issue of First Things, Michel Gurfinkiel provides a welcomed, albeit brief and wide-ranging, introduction to the rise and fall of Christian Democracy as a distinctly religious political movement in Europe.

Americans, both religious and non-religious, can draw sundry lessons for the U.S. from Europe’s Christian Democratic experience.

Religious Establishments with Religious Free Exercise

First, the European experience with Christian Democracy spikes the widespread belief in America that religious establishments necessarily impinge on religious free exercise. In the U.S., we routinely hear that the First Amendment has “a” religion clause because prohibitions of any form of religious establishment is the necessary concomitant to a guarantee of religious free exercise. Yet while the religious identity of today’s Christian Democratic parties in Europe is weak, it was not always so. These parties both fostered and participated in governments that legally established religions in those countries. Despite robust forms of religious establishment, however, these very same countries provided robust protections for religious free exercise.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution articulates two religion clauses, not one. One clause forbids Congressional establishment of a national religion, the other forbids impositions on the free exercise of religion. While some forms of religious establishment impose on religious free exercise, some forms of religious establishment are entirely consistent with religious free exercise.

Fully consistent with a fundamental commitment to America’s constitutional system, including incorporation of much of the Bill of Rights via the Fourteenth Amendment, is the recognition that a robust commitment to religious free exercise is not in the least imperiled by recognition that the reserve power of state governments continues to include authority to create some robust forms of religious establishment.

The European experience with Christian Democracy compellingly demonstrates that it is not purely formalistic to recognize a distinction between allowing religious establishments and protecting religious free exercise.

Liberalism and Christian Democracy

Even more broadly, the Christian Democratic experience in Europe proves that Christian political parties (and religious establishments) are fully consistent with the development and flourishing of liberal political systems.

To be sure, for many modern liberals, the essential core of liberalism is the rejection of the political need for any foundational metaphysics, particularly any religiously-informed metaphysics. This rejection is, for example, what forms the basis for John Rawls’ efforts in both his A Theory of Justice and in Political Liberalism.

So, too, we could make a Deneen-like argument that a necessary, if implicit, rejection of religious metaphysics in Europe’s liberal governmental systems is what hollowed out any distinctly “Christian” identity to Europe’s Christian Democratic Parties. These parties now reflect a Christianity without Christ, indeed, a Christianity without all that many Christians.

Yet whatever is driving modern Europe’s secularization, the rise of Christian Democratic Parties in Europe occurred during a time of relatively robust belief among Europe’s Christians. And these religious commitments continued for decades prior to modern-day secularization.

Contrary to the common liberal conceit, however, not only is serious (and orthodox) religious belief consistent with robust forms of liberal polity, one can argue that liberal polities can flourish only in societies that embrace Christian absolutes. Conversely, a liberalism that rejects metaphysical absolutes has rejected the very grounds that sustain liberalism.

At the very least, it is spurious to claim that commitment to religious tolerance, and liberty more generally, can derive only from anti-foundationalism or some pragmatic modus vivendi between conflicting religious parties.

For example, there is a widespread notion that belief in deep, inherent human depravity—an Augustinian anthropology—augurs for the creation of authoritarian government. Yet just the opposite is the case, for at least two reasons.

The first reason is that human depravity invites authoritarian power only if one holds that human depravity does not extend to human rulers as well as to the polity’s citizens. James Madison’s oft-quoted observation in Federalist 51 perfectly expresses the double application of an Augustinian anthropology to rulers as well as to the ruled, “In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.” That government rulers are no less fallen than the rest of us requires controls on their behavior as well as ours.

Secondly, it is because the dark and forbidding Augustinian anthropology inheres in our very natures that it gives birth to limited government. After all, millennial ideologies, such as Marxism, necessarily require the possibility that human effort can change human nature. The government can not wither after the revolution unless human nature is malleable.

Yet consider Paul’s argument in 2 Timothy in which slavery to Satan entails not harshness, but gentleness and patience: “The Lord’s bondservant must . . . with gentleness correct those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.”

Note that it is because the remedy is beyond human hands—Augustine’s divine monergism—that Paul commends patience and gentleness. Similarly, even non-Yahwist aliens were welcomed in the Old Testament Israeli theocracy, not as a concession to relativism, but because of Israel’s central redemptive experience: “[God] shows his love for the alien by giving him food and clothing. So show your love for the alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt” (Deuteronomy 10.18-19). The more zealous the religious belief, the more zealous the commitment to respect those different than ourselves.

Paedobaptist practice generates a more organic, communal understanding of consent and entry into community. One’s identity is irreducibly both corporate and individual.

The irony is that it is the very fact of humanity’s spiritual slavery that creates the conceptual ground for political freedom. And it is the ostensible spiritual freedom of the Pelagian “freedom of the will” that sets the ground for political despotism, because, if true, human coercion could then effect a real change in the soul.

It is not the vigor of Christian Democracy’s Christian identity that is leading to the eclipse of liberalism in Europe, but the loss of Christian Democracy’s distinctive Christian identity that casts a shadow over liberty in Europe.

Can American Evangelical Culture Sustain a Christian Democratic Movement?

Finally, the central political feature of Christian Democracy is its recognition that both freedom and solidarity are essential to human flourishing. This recognition in turns derives from Christianity’s essential sacramental core. It derives from the both/and of individual identity and corporate identity created by and reflected in baptism and the Eucharist. Without this sacramental and ecclesial center, there is no image for the polity to reflect, and ideologies resolve into the one or the other: the anomie of individualism or the despotism of collectivism.

It is here that we can account for the continuing absence of a significant Christian Democratic movement in the U.S.

One might be forgiven for thinking that today’s Republican Party is an American Christian Democratic party in everything but name only. It receives overwhelming support from (white) Evangelicals in America (with hefty support from Catholics as well, although not to the same degree).

Yet the animating spirit of Evangelical support for the Republican Party derives from fundamentally different sources than the sacramental wellspring of European Christian Democracy. First, because there is no serious sacramental life in most American Evangelical churches. The distinctive, culture-forming emphasis of Baptist and baptistic churches in the U.S. is that only mature individuals can receive the baptismal rite of initiation into the Body of Christ (i.e., the Church). The theology is little more than an ecclesiastical social contract theory baptized in Christian verbiage. And the Eucharist is almost universally understood in the most reductionistic of Zwinglian terms: whatever grace it confers derives from an individual Christian thinking about Jesus while swallowing the square of bread and sipping the wine (er . . . the grape juice). It is enacted as a thoroughly internalized and individualized experience.

In contrast, the Christianity that generated the Christian Democratic movement in Europe, whether Protestant or Catholic, centrally included infants in the administration of the sacrament of baptism. This may seem like a small, internecine distinction, but the ramifications are immense when the sacramental life of the Church informs the image in which the polity is created. (See, for example, Holly Brewer’s book, By Birth or Consent, which I discuss here and here.)

The Christian’s understanding and—just as important—the practice of the sacraments plays an oversized role in the development of the Christian’s semiotic universe. While Catholic social thought naturally carries much of the conceptual weight in the development of Christian Democratic thought, there were strong Protestant currents as well. Think, for example, of Guillaume Groen van Prinsterer and Abraham Kuyper’s Calvinist and Anti-Revolutionary thought in the Netherlands, or Lutheran contributions in Germany, as represented, for example, in the work of Wilhelm Röpke.

Of critical significance, however, is that all of the currents in European Christian Democracy, both Protestant and Catholic, derive from paedobaptist theologies. Paedobaptist practice generates a more organic, communal understanding of consent and entry into community. One’s identity is irreducibly both corporate and individual. This rich semiotic source of the Christian Democratic orientation is consequently inaccessible by the vast majority of American Evangelicals.

That said, there is no reason to be triumphalistic about modern-day European Christian Democracy. Its current manifestation has almost everywhere strayed from its Christian roots. Nonetheless, for both the faithful and for the secularist, its history and experience holds numerous lessons that could be fruitfully engaged for U.S. law, policy, and politics.

Reader Discussion

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.

on July 28, 2020 at 10:38:42 am

This is a thoughtful essay, but, even after also reading the First Things article which Professor Rogers cites, I fail to see that the "history and experience (of European Christian Democracy) holds numerous lessons that could be fruitfully engaged for U.S. law, policy, and politics."

Except for the morally-obtuse Supreme Court and the Christ-hating Leftists in the U.S., two historical-cultural-political insights are obvious to all who know the sad fate of secular progressivism in the U.S. and grasp the inherent illogic of the faux-religious neutrality on which it has been unconstitutionally founded. One insight is that state encouragement of Judeo-Christianity is conducive to human flourishing and constitutional liberty. The second insight is that there is no contradiction between religious liberty and an informal, supportive Establishment of Judeo- Christianity. Both observations are confirmed, as Rogers states, by the experience of European Christian political parties.

But I am unable to identify what else Professor Rogers sees as "numerous lessons" for America to draw from Europe's Christian Democratic political parties. I think (but do not know) that the European experience may be inapposite to the American experience. In that regard it is important to consider that Europe's Christian Democratic parties arose out of long-standing Lutheran, Dutch Reformed and Catholic confessional regimes, an historical experience which was largely absent or where present short-lived in the colonial America after the founding.

read full comment
Image of paladin
paladin
on July 28, 2020 at 13:19:06 pm

The author surmises that liberal democracy might require endorsement of Christian absolutes. But of course this is not at all the case, as the experience of tens of millions of non-Christian and atheist liberal Americans attests ever day. Moreover, to say that one need not embrace Christian absolutes is not the same as asserting that liberalism MUST derive only from anti-foundationalism. Why could liberalism not have various sources, both historical and philosophical: Christianity, secular absolutes, anti-foundationalism, Islam, etc.? And nothing could be more damaging for this argument than the widespread embrace of American Evangelical Christians of a leader who neither understands nor exhibits liberal principles.

read full comment
Image of Whitney
Whitney
on July 28, 2020 at 14:16:45 pm

Like you, I'm puzzled by the suggestion of "numerous lessons" to be drawn. The less which Gurfinkiel shows, I believe, is that while Christians may at times govern effectively in coalition, they also make worldly compromises in order to remain dominant in coalition. AS as they forget underlying wisdom, they eventually lose their political vigor. I'm also puzzled by why Rogers makes it a point to demean American Evangelicals over paedobaptism. I am not an evangelical, and in particular do not care much for Southern Baptist theology which seems to worship the written word. But I don't see how the bond of universality of baptism has much to do with the prob;em of maintaining vigor in a pluralistic world.

read full comment
Image of cmcc_aus
cmcc_aus
on July 29, 2020 at 11:41:35 am

Standards that many human beings can accept and the U.S. hopes for elude Professor Rogers. With the 1787 proffered U.S. promise at stake, humankind seems coming to grips with physics and its progeny---chemistry, biology, psychology, and metaphysics in the challenge to accept the responsibility to constrain chaos and violence.
Rogers cites the duplicity of the First Amendment’s religion clauses: “While some forms of religious establishment [impose-on] religious free exercise, some forms of religious establishment [provide] religious free exercise.” My interpretation is: Religious establishment prevents free exercise. Let me offer an example: European Judeo-Christianity imposes on African-American Christianity by attempting to constrain Orthodox Tewahedo biblical canon through stonewalling.
America may consider Ethiopian Judeo-Christianity. Under Ezana (fl. 320–360) Aksum adopted Christianity”; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Aksum. They used Tewhedo narrow canon: “The . . . the Oriental Orthodox Churches currently have the largest and most diverse biblical canon in traditional Christendom”; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodox_Tewahedo_biblical_canon.
Rogers narrows to the Protestant squabble over infant baptism [with confirmation after education in the faith, which makes good sense] versus baptism after the person is of an age to accept the faith [whether by desire or by coercion]. Each of these Sacraments is a human construct that may not be approved by whatever-God-is.
Rogers seems to equivocate the European Union to imply that each U.S. state may establish religion. However, the U.S. proffered a proposal for individual discipline “in order to” enjoy corporate human independence to the continuum of living citizens in their states as well as in the nation. As a condition for statehood, Utah had to agree not to establish Mormonism; https://ilovehistory.utah.gov/topics/statehood/index.html. (Poor Mitt Romney didn’t get the message, and as a consequence there may never be another “saint” elected to the Senate.)
Rogers claims the standard is managed by the Holy Spirit: “[L]iberal politie can flourish only in societies that embrace Christian absolutes.” No one knows that a metaphysical entity ever extended a life beyond the termination of body, mind, and person. But it seems self-evident that civic integrity if for life style and conforms to physics and its progeny. For example, citizens may claim a “right” to protection from crime. However, the death rate responds to individual behavior rather than metaphysics. The preamble looks to posterity’s posterity to discover statutory justice---the standards for civic living.
A civic culture is possible only if individual persons develop civic integrity so that most candidates for election or appointment to office are reliable. Madison’s difficulty with this prospect stemmed from the Christian belief that only authoritarian government could constrain chaos. In this regard, Madison opposed the 5-member Committee of Style including him, which served from September 8 until September 12, 1787. They added to the draft preamble a people’s proposition, terminating the states confederation.
Each citizen may interpret the 52-word-abstract sentence so as to choose a way of living that is civic, civil, and legal. I share my interpretation so that readers may criticize and perhaps improve my modus vivendi: This person practices and promotes 5 public disciplines---integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity, “in order to” enjoy and encourage responsible human independence among fellow citizens.
Neither my interpretation nor the original U.S. Preamble specifies religious discipline. The original preamble claims the purpose is “Blessings,” or advantages. Too often persons take the license to injure people, murder people, and damage property for egocentric liberty. Therefore, after a year, I abandoned “responsible human liberty.”
I’d be interested in Professor Rogers’ and others’ interpretations of the preamble’s people’s proposition. I think Americans who don’t own an interpretation of the preamble ought not vote, let alone apply for elected or appointed office. Also, the religion clauses should be replaced with protection of the opportunity to develop integrity.

read full comment
Image of Phillip Beaver
Phillip Beaver
on July 30, 2020 at 11:55:55 am

“It is not possible to have Sacramental Communion Without Ecclesial Communion”, due to The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, For It Is “Through Christ, With Christ, And In Christ, In The Unity Of The Holy Ghost”, that Holy Mother Church exists.

The denial of The Filioque is the source of all heresy, for to deny The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, is to deny The Divinity Of The Most Holy And Undivided Blessed Trinity, Father, Son, And Holy Ghost, The Ordered Communion Of Perfect Complementary Love, The Most Holy And Undivided Blessed Trinity.

The Enlightenment is an error in both Faith and Reason because it denies The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, making it appear as if there is more than one True God Who Is, In The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, The Author Of Love, Of Life, And Of Marriage.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/enlightenment/

“But the Enlightenment is not by nature moderate.”

“Just as the sun replaces the earth as the center of our cosmos in Copernicus’ cosmological system, so humanity itself replaces God at the center of humanity’s consciousness in the Enlightenment.”

And herein lies the crux of the matter, for the position of the Sun in God’s Created Universe, does not change the fact that God placed the Earth in the perfect position in relationship to the Sun and the Moon to sustain human life. From God’s Perspective, man is the center of God’s Universe, for man was Created by God Through Salvational
Love, God’s Gift Of Grace And Mercy; The Sacrifice Of The Cross, Is The Sacrifice Of The Most Holy, For No Greater Love Is There Than This- To Desire Salvation For One’s Beloved.

“Behold The Cross, Our Only Hope.”

read full comment
Image of N.D.
N.D.

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.