The Galli Report: 09.09.20

God's will in suffering, Jonathan Sacks and Francis Fukuyama on liberal democracy, dying evangelicalism, and awesome baby names.

God’s Will in Suffering
I somehow missed a wise column by Russ Douthat published last April: “The Pandemic and the Will of God.”  In short order, he explains the different ways we might discern God’s will in the midst of suffering, without being simplistic or cynical.

Because we are not Jesus, it is a very bad idea to walk around telling strangers how their suffering might display the works of God. But as friends, we can participate in others’ discernment and pattern-seeking, and we can try to discern purposes in our own life — suffering as punishment, suffering as refinement, suffering as a judgment on a nation or society, suffering as an opportunity, suffering as part of a story not our own.

A very helpful piece even if there was no pandemic.

‘A Covenant of Human Solidarity’
One of the wisest people on the planet is Jonathan Sacks, Orthodox rabbi, philosopher, theologian, author, and politician.  When Sacks speaks, I turn my head to listen.  Here is an excerpt from his recent book, Morality: Restoring the Common Good in Divided Times, in which he argues his thesis. (HT to J. Modeset).

For me, the most persuasive was Alasdair MacIntyre and his masterwork, After Virtue, in which he argued that though we continue to use moral language, “we have—very largely, if not entirely—lost our comprehension, both theoretical and practical, of morality.”  All we possess, he said, are disconnected fragments of what was once a coherent view of the world and our place within it. He ended the book with a warning of “the coming ages of barbarism and darkness.” That book, despite its pessimism, brought me back to moral philosophy. MacIntyre has been one of the great influences on my life, though there is this obvious difference between us: being Jewish, I am disinclined to pessimism.

I prefer hope. Love your neighbor. Love the stranger. Hear the cry of the otherwise unheard. Liberate the poor from their poverty. Care for the dignity of all. Let those who have more than they need share their blessings with those who have less. Feed the hungry, house the homeless, and heal the sick in body and mind. Fight injustice, whoever it is done by and whoever it is done against. And do these things because, being human, we are bound by a covenant of human solidarity, whatever our color or culture, class or creed.

These are moral principles, not economic or political ones. They have to do with conscience, not wealth or power. But without them, freedom will not survive. The free market and liberal democratic state together will not save liberty, because liberty can never be built by self-interest alone. I-based societies all eventually die. Ibn Khaldun showed this in the fourteenth century, Giambattista Vico in the eighteenth, and Bertrand Russell in the twentieth. Other-based societies survive. Morality is not an option. It’s an essential.

Resolving Differences without Violence
Speaking of classic liberalism and of wise people, here is a thoughtful and balanced essay “Liberalism and Its Discontents: The challenges from the left and the right” by Francis Fukuyama. He champions liberal democracy while acknowledging its weaknesses.  The essay is thorough and splendid overview of the history and turmoil surrounding an idea that seems more contested than ever. His conclusion:

Liberalism’s present-day crisis is not new; since its invention in the 17th century, liberalism has been repeatedly challenged by thick communitarians on the right and progressive egalitarians on the left. Liberalism properly understood is perfectly compatible with communitarian impulses and has been the basis for the flourishing of deep and diverse forms of civil society. It is also compatible with the social justice aims of progressives: One of its greatest achievements was the creation of modern redistributive welfare states in the late 20th century.

Liberalism’s problem is that it works slowly through deliberation and compromise, and never achieves its communal or social justice goals as completely as their advocates would like. But it is hard to see how the discarding of liberal values is going to lead to anything in the long term other than increasing social conflict and ultimately a return to violence as a means of resolving differences.

Whatever Happened to Evangelicalism?
That was the theme of a talk I gave at a recent for Baptist News Global, as part of their “Conversations that Matter” series.  Here is a link to the video, followed by Q & A.  Here is a link to the transcript, which begins

As editor in chief of Christianity Today, I often argued that evangelicalism is not disappearing and that the term evangelical, while controversial and misunderstood in some quarters, was still the best term to describe the movement.  However, after leaving my editorial post as well as moving my primary religious allegiance to Roman Catholicism, I think I have a better understanding of evangelicalism.

What’s in a Name?
Well, for one thing, they are barometer of an era.  There were lots of Katies in every class in my daughter’s generation, and lots of Marks in my own.  That sort of thing may not be a problem in this generation, as the humorous video “Roll Call in Ten Years” notes.

Grace and peace,

Mark Galli
markgalli.com