John B. Kienker, managing editor of Claremont Review of Books, has a positive review of Peter’s Modern and American Dignity in the June/July issue of First Things. He concludes the piece with this friendly criticism:
Ultimately, however, Lawler finds mere political goals–particularly “veneration” of the American founders–inadequate, implying that only “the perspective of genuine believers” can effectively secure human dignity. But these days it seems challenging enough to persuade 300 million of our fellow Americans to embrace the dignity of citizenship again without trying to convert them as well to Christianity. That we must leave to God’s grace.
Peter responds here. Kienker’s comments reveals aspects of the Claremont approach which might be of interest to those revolving around the First Things orbit: 1) His concern is modern in the sense that he wants to lower the bar (from say supernatural virtue to civic virtue) in order to actualize the goal. 2) Instead of JPII’s priority of culture, he reserves a pride of place for politics. 3) His last line hints at a strict reason/revelation divide which denies Christianity’s persuasive power in the public square.
In regards to the last point, the notion that Americans should embrace a Christian account of human dignity is based upon observations of our nature which we can see with our own eyes e.g. openness to the Truth, social and relational beings, etc. This is a flag our Claremont friends can rally around, even if it represents more than just Americans.
July 21st, 2011 | 12:52 am
[...] [...]
July 21st, 2011 | 6:32 am
Well, we can’t say that any real mud is being thrown around. It’s all very civil, as it should be, however, the implication that the affable Mr. Kienker and the Claremontistas are leaning toward a spiritually purged, secular explanation of the founding era is a bit disappointing.
Peter’s brilliantly differentiated position strikes me as Voegelinian in nature though it may not penetrate to or champion the core values of the olde republic. Perhaps it’s best to identify the position as “Lawlerian” and leave the secular/statist apologetics to the Straussians.
July 22nd, 2011 | 7:58 am
I am sure Peter will have more to say about this, tacitly or accidentally, in Seattle, at the upcoming APSA panel on this topic. And just as long as he does not draw all of his sources from his favorite recent television series, the rest of us should be able to follow him. Mark your calendars for this event–it should keep you sleepless in Seattle….JWC
July 23rd, 2011 | 8:51 am
Well, I’m disappointed to see the all caps disappear. I thought they made our blog more manly and emphatic–and certainly not moronic. Bob may be right, but, to repeat, I don’t speak Voegelinian, so I’m not sure.
July 23rd, 2011 | 12:04 pm
Peter, should you get the opportunity, I would appreciate an evaluation/review of the movie, “Adjustment Bureau.”
Voegelinian in the sense that you’re incorporating an ‘open’ existence in the question, in this instance, of the founding era which gives your analysis a far broader, richer, and more penetrating explication..also, there’s your intimation of the theophanic event which I hope you speak of in the future.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact