The Misunderstood “L” Word
Michael F. Bird November/December 2025Both the left and the right are sharpening their critiques of “liberalism” and liberal democracy. Are we ready for what comes next?
The word “liberal” can conjure up all sorts of meanings depending on the context, whether you are talking about politics, economics, or theology. While “liberal” is often associated with left-wing politics and religion, in Australia—my home country—the “liberal party” is the nation’s major center-right political party. That is because, historically, the “liberal” political tradition is the root of both libertarian and progressive politics. It is closely linked with values of liberality or freedom in the areas of religion, speech, self-expression, association, and commerce.
Thus, the liberal political tradition champions the principles of individual freedom, equality for all, and the rule of law. As a political arrangement, liberal democracy is a system of governance based on upholding personal rights and liberties against autocratic authority, while stressing the importance of democratic processes and constitutional legal frameworks. It is a form of government that values the equality, dignity, and worth of every person. It upholds basic rights and promotes a common good.
Liberal democracy stands in strong relief to absolute monarchy, theocracy, Communism, and fascism. A liberal democracy is constituted for the explicit purpose of preventing totalitarian dictators from rising to power, just as a constitutional democracy protects minorities from the majority. Government works best with the consent of those governed, and citizens need freedom to pursue happiness and to advocate for political outcomes that they think best. Strange as it might sound, liberal democracy gives birth to both left-wing and right-wing variations, as each defines and prioritizes the freedom of the individual in relation to the wider society in different ways.
If we were to sum up liberalism, it would simply be this: the freedom of the individual balanced with the rule of law.
Christian Roots
It is important to note that liberal democracy is also an explicitly Christian project and could even be characterized as Christendom 2.0. A country can be democratic without being liberal (for example, India, Indonesia, and Türkiye), and it can be liberal without being completely democratic (the European Union). But liberalism and democracy appeared in countries shaped by missional Protestantism. Yes, there are other influences, too—from Roman law to the Reformation, the Enlightenment, and more. Yet the reality is that the moral compass of the West has been set to the magnetic field of Christianity even in politics. Our left versus right debates are really in-house Christian debates about how to be a Christian society even if only one side of the debate recognizes the subliminal theology embedded in its political discourse. (This is the insight repeatedly noted by popular historian Tom Holland in The Rest Is History podcast and in his 2021 book, Dominion: How the Christian Revolution Remade the World.) That is not to say that the irreligious have no ethics, or that ethics must be explicitly tied to religious principles in order to be coherent or attractive. Be that as it may, the fact is that eventually all immanent ethical frames collapse into a grotesque monstrosity of some form (for example, Marxism, humanism, or even technocratic posthumanism); while Christian ethics, which are proven to have universal capacity and social utility, even as they are malleable and capable of development, offer a much better template to work from.
Liberalism, however, is under attack from a number of different directions.
Civic Totalism
On the progressive side of things, there are political actors and voices that believe that civic freedoms stand in the way of the progressive cause. In effect, civil liberties need to be curtailed or redefined in order to enable progressive policies to be legally established.
Yet the progressive expression of liberalism is incoherent, chaotic, and coercive. This is a world where it is not enough to say that trans rights are human rights, but that a lesbian who refuses to have sex with a trans woman is guilty of discrimination and must be punished. I am not joking; this is a real thing. Google “cotton ceiling” if you think this is made-up.
For many progressives, religion is treated with suspicion because religion assigns ultimacy to something other than the progressive state and the state’s vision of the human good. In which case, religious freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and freedom of association must be curtailed to realize the goals of the progressive state. This is precisely why—in Australia, for instance—a Catholic hospital was forcibly seized by a progressive government and why legislation has been proposed to remove the conscientious objection that medical professionals may have to performing abortions.
Or else, in progressive perspective, individuals should be treated according to a hierarchy of identities rather than equally before the law. What matters is not character, intention, or even behavior, but one’s racial and sexual identity determines how one should be treated.
So progressive political liberalism gives you more freedom in relation to sex, pleasure, and death, but the government is willing to take away your freedoms if you dissent or criticize the basic tenets of progressive legal frameworks.
In the end, certain accounts of the progressive political vision amount to what American political philosopher Stephen Macedo calls civic totalism, in which the plenipotentiary state is invested with all power and seeks to regulate as much of public and private life as possible. For many progressives the health of the state depends on a convergence of private and public values, requiring government to be empowered with the “ability to turn people’s deepest convictions—including their religious beliefs—in directions that are congruent with the ways of a liberal republic” (to quote from Macedo). This is a harrowing thought, but an all too real threat to basic civil liberties.
The Postliberal Option?
Given the threat to civil liberties proposed by the progressive redefinition or rejection of classic liberalism, for many the solution to civic totalism is civil religion with a vaguely Christian leader armed with traditional moral convictions, a powerful propaganda machine, and state power to attack the instruments of progressive ideology. That, I would argue, is a cure worse than the disease itself.
Among the alternatives to civil totalism are Christian nationalism and Catholic integralism, which contend that state neutrality and a separation of church and state have failed to defend Christian ethics and religious freedom. Therefore, a return to a Constantine settlement where the state sponsors and patronizes Christianity is the riposte to secularizing zeal.
Such nakedly power-seeking ambitions are likely to have the same negative effect as the old Constantinization of the church. It would lead to Christianity being used to justify political power and yield a shallow discipleship that operates at a polite cultural level rather than sinks down into the mind and heart.
There are, however, new alternatives to Christian nationalism and Catholic integralism that share the aversion to the progressive revisionism of liberalism. That, of course, is postliberalism, a political framework associated with political theorists such as Patrick Deneen and Adrian Vermeule, among others.
Postliberalism is something of a buzzword among center-right conservatives in Europe and the United States these days. It has gained a lot of support among both Catholic and Protestant thinkers, which is why it merits attention.
In sum, postliberalism is a critique of liberalism, declaring that liberalism is the victim of its own success. That is, liberalism’s promotion of freedom has created too much autonomy, too much individualism; it causes fragmentation and fighting and breaks the bonds that holds a nation together.
Postliberals argue for emphasis on a national identity and a common good underwritten by tradition, religion, and a constitution.
Yet despite the affection that many have for postliberalism, including current U.S. vice president J. D. Vance, I believe it has a number of downsides:
The suspicion of globalism means postliberals can become isolationist and nationalist.
The suspicion of free market economics means reduced incentives for innovation and risk-taking, while also inhibiting profit motive, which may reduce economic prosperity.
Who decides the “common good” and which traditions and institutions should be supported by the state to promote it?
The curtailment of expressive individualism will always require some degree of censorship and coercion that can easily morph into authoritarianism.
Allowing religious institutions a political voice and social influence can easily give way to civil religion and ethnonationalism. The attempt to forge a common good in a heterogeneous society, united by religious values, and that commands democratic consensus will be nearly impossible to realize without manipulation of the populace.
Recovering the Liberal Tradition
Let me spell out the differences between the various political views surveyed above by using examples drawn from musical theater.
Classic liberalism could be summarized with a song from Les Misérables “Do you hear the people sing? Singing a song of angry men? It is the music of a people who will not be slaves again!” This is a song about throwing off the shackles of a tyrannical king, a corrupt church, and a class-dominated society so that all people would be treated equally.
Progressive liberalism can be summed up with a line from the lead song of the hit musical Frozen: “No right, no wrong, no rules for me. I’m free.” Such a song celebrates self-actualization over any incumbering principle of morality or law. A will to power that must not be tamed, restricted, or fettered by anything, even social responsibility. Any critique of that self-actualization is itself offensive and harmful and therefore unlawful.
Christian nationalism could also be summed up from Les Misérables by the song “Stars,” by the character Javert: “And so it must be for so it is written on the doorway to paradise that those who falter and those who fall must pay the price!” This is a song about a Christian man driven by his own sense of duty and righteousness to punish even the most penitent and pious wrongdoer because power and law always trump grace and gospel.
Postliberalism could be summed up, at least its critique, from the song “The Room Where It Happens,” from Hamilton, as the song decries the elitism of the American political order: “No one really knows how the game is played. The art of the trade. How the sausage gets made. We just assume that it happens. But no one else is in the room where it happens.” A great reflection of liberalism’s failings as the machinery of government in the liberal and democratic tradition lends itself to compromise, backroom deals, and a lack of transparency.
In the end, what I think is preferable, from a Christian perspective, is something like the song “You Will Be Found,” from Dear Evan Hansen: “Even when the dark comes crashin’ through, when you need a friend to carry you, and when you’re broken on the ground, you will be found.” Government should work for those so governed without being populist or elitest.
Each of the options above has its pros and cons. In end, though, I wonder if the best option is what I call chastened liberalism, shorn of the excesses and absurdities of progressive politics, resisting the allure of power in Christian nationalism, avoiding the cynicism of postliberalism, and that proceeds with a historical awareness of liberalism’s genetic origins in Latin jurisprudence, Christianity, and the Enlightenment. Further, its objective is to ensure the freedom and responsibility of its citizens, balancing individualism and the common good, where no single ideology or institution becomes almighty. A chastened liberalism seeks to retool and reapply the classic liberal tradition for the twenty-first century.
To do that, I wonder if liberal democracies need to think of themselves, not as a collection of individuals nor even as a mass of identities, but as a type of civilization (dare I say a Christianized civilization with a bespoke legal tradition, a way of ordering society, one that is a compelling alternative to theocracy and autocracy).
The truth is that while no political system is perfect, liberal democracy provides a framework that aligns with Christianity’s core beliefs and values about human dignity and equality. Historically speaking, liberal democracy thrives mostly in countries that have been shaped by the Christian tradition. That is because liberal democracy is rooted in biblical notions of the inherent value of every person, promoting justice and mercy, and seeking the common good. By supporting liberal democracy, we can contribute to creating a society in which all people have the opportunity to thrive and in which our faith can be lived out freely and authentically.
Article Author: Michael F. Bird
Rev. Dr. Michael F. Bird (Ph.D., University of Queensland) is academic dean and lecturer in New Testament at Ridley College in Melbourne, Australia. He is the author of more than 30 books, including The New Testament in its World, coauthored with N. T. Wright, and Religious Freedom in a Secular Age: A Christian Case for Liberty, Equality, and Secular Government. He can be followed on twitter @mbird12, he blogs at michaelfbird@substack.com, and has a YouTube channel called Early Christian History.