Here’s a good article by Dr. Giles Fraser an Anglican rector and philosopher in defense of liberalism, rightly understood. Dr. Fraser contrasts the self-assertive hyper-individualistic version of liberalism which receives much well-deserved ire from theologians and social critics with a more temperate tradition of liberalism he traces back to Edmund Burke:

Burke’s suspicious liberalism begins from an acknowledgement of human fallenness. Moreover, he applies the idea of fallenness so much more widely than Evangelicals such as Professor [Oliver] O’Donovan; for Burke believes that it is not just wilful individuals that are fallen, but also groups, institutions, political systems, theologies, and Churches.

Edmund Burke’s famous political caution applies particularly to those who reform out of a burning sense of moral virtue. These people are especially dangerous when they are too confident in their own position, and not prepared to acknowledge the fallenness of their world-view.

Liberty is an important principle in so far as it protects human beings from those who are convinced they know best; those who are convinced they always know the truth. Liberal freedom is not wilful self-assertiveness: it is an insurance policy against dangerous bullies who believe they have God on their side.

Dr. Fraser is, by his own admission, leaning on the work of Christopher Insole (see here, here, here, and here for more on Insole’s theological defense of liberalism). He suggests that a commitment to this version of liberalism is characteristic of Anglicanism and could help hold the Anglican Communion together. “What gives this form of liberalism such an affinity with Anglicanism is that it disavows a clear-eyed certainty about the truth, in the name of peaceful co-existence between those of very different theological persuasions — which is just what Richard Hooker was after. “

I’m in broad sympathy with what Dr. Fraser says here, but the obvious objection is that making the peaceful coexistence of different theological persuasions the governing principle of a church will lead to wishy-washiness and theological laxity or indifference. After all, the church didn’t decide to include Arianism as just another “theological persuasion;” it declared it anathema and sub-Christian. Or to use Fraser’s example, hardcore Puritans and Catholics both found the Anglican via media unacceptable, despite Hooker’s best efforts. Don’t there, in other words, have to be some non-negotiable truths in order for the church to maintain any distinct identity? The idea of adiaphoria seems like it should come into play here, but in the case of many of the issues dividing our churches, there is disagreement precisely over what is adiaphoria.

(Link via A Conservative Blog for Peace)