How could the right sort of liberalism be distinguished from the wrong sort? Ad fontes! Go to the origins. I made a fresh attempt to understand the historical source of the problem. I found that the Reformation gradually gave rise to two forms of liberal Christianity. One of these was deeply involved in the first phase of political liberalism, in the mid-17th century. Its clearest theorist was the poet John Milton.

What is “liberal” Christianity? Is it the attempt to do Christianity in an honest, modern way; or is it an attempt to dodge the hard bits of this faith? I have spent quite a large proportion of my life thinking this through, wondering whether liberal Christianity can be authentically Christian, or whether it gravitates towards a soggy compromise with secular humanism.

Well, eureka, I think have found the answer. The conclusion I have come to is that liberal Christianity has two meanings: there are two traditions here. They are deeply intertwined, but they must be pulled apart – for one tradition infects and corrodes the other. Only once this separation is made can an authentic liberal Christianity be affirmed.

One sort of liberal Christianity edges away from supernatural belief, and church ritual: it presents Jesus as a great moral teacher, the first humanist, through whose example we can learn to mend our world. It assumes a basic harmony between Christianity and the rational Enlightenment.

The other sort of liberal Christianity affirms political liberalism – the ideal of a state that rejects theocracy and protects people’s liberties. But it does not seek to reform Christianity in a rational-humanist direction: it understands that such “reform” undermines this religion, falsifies it.

Very simply, the latter sort of liberal Christianity is the only authentic version; it must be rescued from the deathly embrace of the former sort. Only thus can liberal Christianity be renewed.
Read More.