Liberty for All: John Mark Reynolds on Os Guinness

Last updated on: August 6, 2012 at 11:58 am by Guest Contributor

Liberty for All: John Mark Reynolds on Os Guinness 2012-08-06T11:58:55-06:00 Guest Contributor

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

By John Mark Reynolds

A fat nation consumes fattening food to protest libertine sexual morality while libertines bluster about forcing private business to their views.

If you don’t get this, then read Os Guinness’ new book A Free People’s Suicide. He is persuasive in his argument that the American Republic faces a crisis that could end in its decline. This brief book states that the American Founders built on a “golden triangle” of freedom: freedom, virtue, and faith. Each value reinforces the other. He rightly notes that secularism (including especially atheism) has never built a political or moral order not dependent on religion.

Guinness is compelling when he points to the decline in virtue, public and private. He has no tolerance for the public/private distinction foisted on the nation in the Clinton administration. He rightly notes the corrosive impact when the private misdoings of public figures becomes known. That we did not know of Franklin Roosevelt’s affairs prevented them from being harmful to public morality, but weakened the great man at the very least by exposing him to charges of deceit and hypocrisy.

Guinness rightly whips the money changers out of the Temple. There is no place in Christianity for those who favor the rights of the rich over the poor, but Guinness is smart enough to reject the French Revolution’s tyranny of the poor over the rich.

Guinness argues for liberty for all.

Freedom is not absolute and must be sustained by virtue. This obvious to a religious person, but not so obvious to the person reduced to “consumer.” Guinness attempts to liberate the consumer as surely as Washington sought to liberate the colonies.

At times Guinness forces a false equivalence in his book between classical liberals inconsistent to their values (like the more Wilsonian statements of George W. Bush) and the naked secularism and rejection of liberalism by progressives. Make no mistake Guinness is a conservative and at times it feels as if he is forced by an IVP editor to be “even-handed” in his criticisms.

There is still a case to be made for the Iraq War, but Guinness is right that there is no Christian who should support the torture that came with it. The term “empire” has become so fluid in modern conversation as to become merely a pejorative term for power. Guinness is less nimble in his discussion of empire.

Was the British rule in India really worse than the Mogul rule or raj that came before it? Guinness is unsubtle: empire is bad. Is it? Or is that another bromide of the sophists of our time? This is not to defend colonialism, but to point to the limitation of any short book that deals with many topics quickly.

Traditional Christians struggle to avoid gluttony and consumerism, but rare is the voice on the right that would defend either! It is not the “religious right” (meaning most religious) that rejoices in Ayn Rand, after all.

The Enlightenment gets much undeserved criticism from Christians and Guinness redresses this imbalance by noting what it got right.

For most of American history a Christian ethic sat at the root of our politics, law, and civil affairs. We kept the public square open to other ideas, but listening to the Battle Hymn of the Republic made it pretty plain the unifying vision: a tolerant Christianity. This product of Christian apologist and philosopher John Locke allowed dissent and could even hide itself by claiming just to be “reason,” but to outsiders genteel Christianity permeated the civil religion.

Guinness makes too little, I think, of the vanquishing of this civil religion. Religious extremists hated it for its sunny latitudinarianism, secularists because it was religious, and ideologues because it was an intellectual muddle, but it worked.

Nothing has been proposed to replace it that has any chance of success. Ethics cannot come from science, because “is” cannot come from “ought.” The undergirding ethic cannot just be “reason” anymore than one can build a house by using merely tools.

Guinness take on post-modernism is not very helpful, but then “post-modernism” has become so diffuse that saying anything about it unhelpful. Guinness writes as if there is a thing one can call post-modernism, but when neo-Platonic views can be called “post-modern creationism.”

These are quibbles, however, about a fine book. Americans must stop defining themselves by what they buy (“Apple-man!”), desire (“Gwen Paltrow-man!”), eat (“Thai!”), or drink (“Talisker!”). Christians must reject without equivocation the wickedness of Rand and extreme libertarianism: we are our brother’s keeper. Christians must support moderation as a virtue including moderation in religion!

On all this Guinness speaks a prophetic word: read his book. Americans are right to worry that morality is being supplanted by short term desires. Guinness is right that the largest danger to most Americans is not eating too little fast food, but too much.

Guinness stands with Burke and Lincoln and I, for one, stand with Os Guinness. I will moderate my desires for things, stop objectifying people, eat and drink less and define myself in terms of Jesus.

I will vote for Mr. Romney, but not with the Utopian belief that he will fix all our problems, but in the hopes he will face up to hard truths.

Thanks Mr. Guinness for this great book.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

July 31, 2012

Awakenings of Hope: A Q&A with Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove

Next Post

August 14, 2012 inSignificant

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Author Q&A Book Review Christian Living Church Leadership Stump a Scholar Theology Uncategorized

Select a Month June 2022 March 2021 October 2020 August 2020 February 2019 November 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 November 2016 October 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What is the main structure of Lamentations?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Ten parables Five acrostic poems Twelve genealogies Six sermons