Ahmari among the Protestants

Integralism or Political Protestantism?

There are those among us [Catholics], as it must be confessed, who for years past have conducted themselves as if no responsibility attached to wild words and overbearing deeds; who have stated truths in the most paradoxical form, and stretched principles till they were close upon snapping; and who at length, having done their best to set the house on fire, leave to others the task of putting out the flame.

John Henry Newman wrote these words in 1875, in the midst of a fierce controversy over the role of Catholics in English public life in the wake of Vatican I. But he might just as well have been writing about some of today’s “integralists.” 

“Liberalism” has never lacked detractors, and recent decades have witnessed a surge of various “post-liberal” voices among Protestants, Catholics, and Jews. The project of retrieving Catholic integralism is a recent development within this broader movement. The integralists have issued increasingly harsh denunciations of American constitutional liberties and the Founding principles that inspired them. Perhaps, they have argued, the progressive moral derangement of our culture is fundamentally the result of a philosophical mistake that goes back centuries, a religious wrong turn that began at the Reformation, and a flawed political vision built into the very foundations of the American republic.

While such a dour diagnosis would have been common enough in 19th-century European Catholicism, it represents a striking shift of tone for American Catholics, who got their hall pass to participate as equals in in American public life six decades ago by promising to be good liberals, keeping their Catholicism private. They were also admitted to the leadership ranks of American conservatism by speaking the vague language of “permanent things,” “order,” “tradition,” and “Judeo-Christian heritage.” Today, however, they denounce liberal ideals such as viewpoint neutrality and religious liberty as fictitious charades, proposing in their place a return to an explicitly Christian politics guided by papal authority and privileging the Catholic Church.

Or do they? Certainly there are vocal corners of the internet eager to turn back the clock to the glory days of the Habsburgs, but leading public exponents of Catholic anti-liberalism, such as Patrick Deneen and Adrian Vermeule, have been harder to pin down. Behind their provocative rhetoric, we often find fairly innocuous and ecumenical concepts like the common good, the importance of the natural family, and the priority of community. And yet they frequently imply that the only way to secure these goods is to become Catholic, an implication fortified with frequent potshots against Protestants as responsible for everything wrong with modernity.

Strangely missing from nearly all of these conversations is the political tradition that more than any shaped the contemporary Western world—not Lockeanism, but magisterial Protestantism. According to this tradition, the state must not exercise dominion over conscience, but that does not mean that the state should not have a conscience; religion is a matter of public concern, without being the object of positive coercion. In this tradition, the God-given natural law is the supreme rule and the basis for the civil law, but the exact contours and just application of this natural law remain open for rational debate. In this tradition, church establishment is encouraged, but the forms it may take are plural and guided by prudence.

Likewise, the church is expected to leaven society, but as citizen-believers rather than through direct action of the clerical hierarchy. This tradition was still dominant in the early days of the American republic. Many states and localities supported established churches and religious freedom, rights were understood to be inextricable from moral duties, and concern for the common good underlay much legislation and social norms.

To be sure, this describes a bygone world that may be neither possible nor wholly desirable to retrieve. But adaptability is built into this tradition, in a way that one cannot say of Roman Catholicism before 1963. The magistrate has a natural duty to promote true religion, but how best to do this may look very different in different circumstances and stages of society. Moreover, since this duty is distributed amongst an active citizenry, rather than mediated top-down from a single voice of authority, it does not stand in such great tension with liberal political institutions.

Given that few of the Catholic anti-liberals are prepared to reduce their political program to the command to “Repent and submit to the Pope!,” one suspects that what many of them are really after is not a political Catholicism, but a renewed political Protestantism.

The project envisioned by rising Catholic intellectual Sohrab Ahmari is a case in point. In an interview last year with Yoram Hazony about his new book, The Unbroken Thread, Ahmari attempts to summarize what he means by “political Catholicism,” which he contends is “the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church.” Political Catholicism, he argues, is committed to the idea of Christianity as a mass religion, a religion that therefore embraces the whole of a society and encompasses a civilization. But he does not seem to envision this as demanding state coercion of right religion; rather, it is simply “the idea that church and civilization should be involved with each other,” a view “in which a decent society makes it easier for people to practice the natural virtue of piety of religiosity,” because “the faith of the ordinary person has to be somehow protected and preserved.” This, Ahmari admits, may take a very different form in the twenty-first century than the ninth.

If this is really all that “political Catholicism” means, we might be forgiven for asking, “Is Ahmari, too, among the Protestants?” After all, it was the Protestant Reformers who were concerned most of all about the idea of Christianity as a mass religion, against the late-medieval bifurcation between educated clergy and untaught laity, between the Latin-tongued liturgists and the vulgar masses. And it was the Protestant Reformers who pushed most strongly for the integration of church and society, arguing that the medieval church had encouraged and lionized monastic withdrawal from the world. And it was the Protestant Reformers who wanted to make it “easier for people to practice the natural virtue of religiosity” by arguing that the gospel must do its work in society through persuasion, rather than harsh coercion.

From the sixteenth century to the nineteenth, the political vision of the Catholic Church was associated not with such moderate aspirations, but with the formal claims of papal supremacy over all temporal authorities—as Ahmari indeed notes in passing in chapter 6 of his book. These included his powers to excommunicate rulers, order their subjects to disobey them, and release citizens from their oaths and vows, as Pope Pius V did to Queen Elizabeth in 1570. This is why, as late as 1776, John Jay argued that the New York constitution should exclude Roman Catholics from immigrating, since they were subject to a “foreign authority” who could “absolve the subjects of this state from the allegiance of the same.” And this is why, as late as 1874, William Gladstone could denounce the teachings of the First Vatican Council as a threat to the British constitutional order.

In The Unbroken Thread, Ahmari dedicates a rather curious chapter to this nineteenth-century controversy, one that seems to betray confusion over the historic positions of Catholics and Protestants on religious and political liberty. The bulk of the book, it should be emphasized, is thoroughly ecumenical, self-consciously incorporating insights from Confucian, Jewish, Catholic, and Protestant thinkers, as well as several moderns of dubious and idiosyncratic religiosity. Its thesis is the claim, much like that of C.S. Lewis’s Abolition of Man, that human nature is constituted by limits, that true freedom is found in the recognition, not the imagined transcendence of, such limits, and that the way for humans to flourish within these limits is captured within the age-old traditions of many civilizations—through Christianity most of all. There is hardly anything in the book to suggest that the evils of modern hyper-liberalism can be cured only by the embrace of Roman Catholicism and its distinctive political vision. Hardly anything until Chapter Eight, that is.

In this chapter, “Should You Think for Yourself?,” Ahmari takes aim squarely at the great heresy of modernity: the idea that “the individual has the supreme right and even the duty to reason through life’s dilemmas on her own, her conscience unchained by authorities of whatever kind” (164). Ahmari names this conviction as the essence of “liberalism.” But by this definition, very few individuals before the later 20th century could be described as advocates of “liberalism.” If there is one who does, however, a man “who personified liberalism in the nineteenth century,” it was—according to Ahmari—the great British statesman William Gladstone. Never mind that Ahmari never once attempts to quote Gladstone articulating this expansive new vision of conscience, or that Gladstone was, by Ahmari’s own admission, “a devout evangelical,” his conscience chained to the Word of God. It is enough for Ahmari that Gladstone took up the cudgels against the Papacy in the wake of the First Vatican Council.

Ahmari calls Gladstone’s The Vatican Decrees in Their Bearing on Civil Allegiance “one of the most notorious anti-Catholic screeds ever published,” one “tinged with not a little menace” (168). In fact, however, it is a matter-of-fact and fairly run-of-the-mill Protestant critique of Roman pretensions to rule over conscience and intrude upon the proper sphere of civil allegiance. It may be that Gladstone conflates to some extent the doctrine of papal infallibility and the doctrines of the pope’s political power, as John Henry Newman would protest in his A Letter to the Duke of Norfolk (1875). But, pace Ahmari, it should be clear that Gladstone opposed neither the idea of an infallible authority that should bind conscience, nor the idea of human authorities that should guide and govern the individual’s exercise of freedom. Rather, he opposed quite specifically the fusion of these two in the person of the Pope: there may be an infallible authority, but it is not human; and there must be human authorities, but these are not infallible.

Strikingly, Newman in his Letter never accuses Gladstone of holding to the modern view of conscience, a fact that Ahmari obscures in his quotations from the tract. In fact, Newman grants that historic Protestantism, in all its branches, joins with Rome in repudiating the modern liberal view of conscience: “When Anglicans, Wesleyans, the various Presbyterian sects in Scotland, and other denominations among us, speak of conscience, they mean what we mean” (italics mine). Newman’s purpose is simply to show that a Roman Catholic need not, “surrender his mental and moral freedom” by bowing to the decrees of the Pope, as Gladstone had charged.

But what Ahmari seems to miss is that Newman achieves this defense of Roman Catholicism by subtly appropriating the historic Protestant, not the historic Catholic understanding of conscience and authority, articulated from Boniface VIII’s Unam Sanctam (1302) to Leo XIII’s Immortale Dei (1885). Although Newman considers it difficult to imagine that the Pope would ever in fact command him to act against his civil allegiance, or authoritatively pronounce on something to which his conscience could not consent, he forthrightly admits that if this did happen, he would follow his conscience, and disobey the Pope:

If either the Pope or the Queen demanded of me an ‘Absolute Obedience,’ he or she would be transgressing the laws of human nature and human society. I give an absolute obedience to neither. Further, if ever this double allegiance pulled me in contrary ways, which in this age of the world I think it never will, then I should decide according to the particular case, which is beyond all rule, and must be decided on its own merits. I should look to see what theologians could do for me, what the Bishops and clergy around me, what my confessor; what friends whom I revered: and if, after all, I could not take their view of the matter, then I must rule myself by my own judgment and my own conscience.

Here I stand; I can do no other? 

To compound the confusion, Ahmari, having cited Newman as a Catholic champion against Protestant private judgment, goes on to hold up as a model Newman’s description of John Keble from the Apologia Pro Vita Sua:

Keble was a man who guided himself and formed his judgments…by authority. Conscience is an authority; the Bible is an authority; such is the Church; such is Antiquity; such are the words of the wise; such are hereditary lessons; such are ethical truths; such are historical memories, such are legal saws and state maxims; such are proverbs; such are sentiments, presages, and prepossessions.

But Keble was a member of the Protestant Church of England, and this understanding of authority, with “the Church” but one form of authority among many that must govern and guide the conscience, is quintessentially Protestant!

None of this is to deny that the Catholic Church can reform and adapt (although infallibility makes it challenging), leaving behind its earlier decree that “it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” Perhaps Newman is right that a good Catholic can indeed now be a good citizen of a moderate liberal regime, with the Pope’s spiritual authority cordoned off from temporal matters. But if so, let us learn to call things by their proper names.

As a magisterial Protestant, I warmly welcome Catholic skeptics of liberalism into a shared project of renewing the common good and the conscience, through respect for natural law and constitutional liberty; but let us call this project what it is: political Protestantism.

* Photo Credit: Pixabay

Print article

Share This

Bradford Littlejohn

Bradford Littlejohn is a Fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center and President of the Davenant Institute. He has published extensively on Protestant political theology, Christian ethics, and the Anglo-American conservative tradition. He lives in Landrum, SC with his wife Rachel and four children.

3 thoughts on “Ahmari among the Protestants

  1. When Ahmari speaks of Catholicism being a mass religion it seems pretty clear that what he’s opposing that too is the individualistic turn that came out of the protestant revolt against hierarchy, ritual, superstition, and supererrogation, as described by Charles Taylor among others. When you say that protestants wanted a mass religion as against hierarchies you’re using the phrase “mass religion” to mean a completely different thing than Ahmari does (you mean unmediated whereas Ahmari just means ‘not individualized) and I wish that had been acknowledged.

  2. I must respectfully deeply question the wisdom of “warmly welcom[ing] Catholic skeptics of liberalism into a shared project of renewing the common good,” etc. That such an attitude is entertained reveals a great sickness – not only on the part of Wokeists, or “hyper-liberals”, but on the side of their Protestant opponents.

    I have not read enough of Sohrab Ahmari to offer a detailed critique of his work or positions. But I am familiar with some of the things he has posted on Twitter. On October 20, 2020, he wrote “Reminder that this account is 100 percent loyal to
    @Pontifex_ln” (Pope Francis). On November 2, 2020, he posted “Periodic reminder that it is prohibited error for Catholics to believe that the Roman pontiff “can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with, progress, liberalism, and modern civilization.” Apparently, it does not matter to Ahmari that despite our Catholic president’s support of devilish policies like LGBT, his “Holiness” is unwilling to excommunicate him.
    Ahmari’s mind is clearly infected with traditional Roman Catholicism’s perverted errors. It is unfortunate that he is heralded as some ascendant “intellectual” in conservative quarters – this is obviously a result of conservatism’s wide but unserious (and more importantly, unbiblical and ungodly) celebrity culture. The net result of seeking to ally or placate such hypocritical men is sure to further American spiritual decline as well as accessions to the Church of Rome in terms of increased influence and conversions.

    Mr. Aaron Renn, who is the editor of this journal and whose views I am not in complete agreement with, revealed on a previous episode of his podcast that Mr. Ahmari had blocked him on Twitter – not for a vulgar personal attack (which I have never seen Mr. Renn make against anyone), but just for expressing disagreement with him on some issue. This really should tell you some things. I wonder what God, who said “He who loves not his brother abides in death” (1 John 3:14), would say about this or the condition of Mr. Ahmari’s soul. That Ahmari would block someone over this seems to be thin-skinned. Though people like this are obviously intellectually well-read and mentally capable of writing popular books, I seriously doubt that they would make good allies for Protestants or Evangelicals who seek to bring godliness back to our nation.

    This journal’s name is American Reformer. The United States of America is a wonderful country, and the Protestant Reformation was a good yet imperfect historical event that produced many great things. It is very disappointing, therefore, that the people here would want to bring foolish Catholic Integralists into their intellectual fold. As Mr. Ahmari admits himself, the principles of Catholicism are completely antithetical to that of the liberty of the United States, which from its inception has championed freedom. Do I have to explain how Catholicism and Protestantism are fundamentally and historically incompatible?

    Ahmari’s story is a spiritually tragic one. He grew up in Mohammedan Iran and then emigrated to the USA. His religious journey is from Islam to atheism to Catholicism. So this deluded man gets to escape the religious infidels of Persia and is welcomed to majority Protestant America, where he is clothed, fed, relieved from persecution, and is able to land a career where he receives massive accolades and success. His response to the country that was so good to him and his family? That sacrificed millions of its citizens in military conflicts to uphold freedom? Rejection of the Founding Fathers’ vision and production of propaganda to bring everything under the control of the Pope of Rome. Ahmari could have been raised in a majority-Catholic country in Latin America or a historically Catholic country like Italy. But of course he had to move the United States where his “success” comes from attacking the country’s political foundations that have brought so many blessings to millions.

    Since the beginning of humanity, and the days of the Pharisees, there have always been religious hypocrites like Ahmari. This should surprise no one. What is disappointing, in light of the Reformation’s history, is that people who call themselves “Protestant” (or rather, “Reformed Catholic” now), are seeking to make alliances with such evil men. To my understanding, the Reformed Catholic movement as represented by people like the author of this piece (whom I mean no personal attack against) seems to be an attempt to source the wisdom of the Protestant path in order to meet the challenges of today. Frankly, if they are going to be honest, they will have to admit a huge part of Protestantism legacy is removed: militant (in an intellectual and cultural sense) opposition to the errors of the Church of Rome. Martin Luther reportedly called the Catholic Church “the slaughterhouse of souls”, and many ex-Catholics who have been brought to a saving faith (not mere “assent” [assensus] as the Catholic Church and Sandemanians hold, but also personal trust [fiducia] as Protestants like John Calvin taught) in the Lord Jesus Christ can attest to this. The Westminster Confession 25.6 says, “There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ; nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God.” This is obviously heresy to a convinced Roman Catholic. There can be no real agreement between a staunch doctrinal Catholic and a Protestant. The Integralist view of the “common good” necessarily means submission to the Church of Rome and the Pope, but a true Protestant or Evangelical can never hold this. Can two walk together, unless they be agreed (Amos 3:3)?

    If you still are not convinced, I would suggest that you check out this Twitter post and read through the replies by “trad” Catholics. It is a sight to behold.

    On Twitter, Mr. Nate Fischer, the chairman of American Reformer, wrote, “By recognizing alignment [with Integralists] on these issues, we should be able to jointly advocate a program that is both deeply grounded in the American political tradition, and satisfies the concerns integralists have with modern liberalism.” May I respectfully ask why it is so important to satisfy Integralist concerns? These Integralists are spiritually the same as the Pharisees of Jesus’ day. They are not merely Christians with whom we have a minor disagreement – they are lost sinners who are not justified until they repent and trust in Christ alone personally for salvation. They are heretics under God’s wrath. Any evil that comes from Wokeism or liberalism is part of the inevitable damage that comes from those who worship God with their lips, but their hearts are far from Him; on the other hand, He promises to protect those who fear and obey Him.

    A number of the people associated with American Reformer were speakers at the 2021 National Conservatism Conference with Mr. Ahmari and perhaps even more ominously, homosexual Peter Thiel (by any chance, does he have anything to do with American Reformer? Some allege he is funding the perverted online Dissident Right). I can understand the desire to find political allies in perilous times. I believe it is really important to wage spiritual warfare according to Biblical principles, however. We should remember that in the Old Testament, God rebuked King Jehoshaphat for allying with wicked King Ahab (2 Chronicles 19:2). If we are truly saved from our sins, we should know that we, through prayer, have access to God’s blessings and spiritual armor for combatting wickedness. We have the Holy Ghost, who alone is able to convict sinners. But God will not bless those who are wise in their own eyes and do not walk according to His commands. If you choose to link up with Papists, you should not be too surprised if your children or people under your influence join the Church of Rome and reject your Protestantism. Rather than seeking common ground with Catholics, we should “reprove [and] rebuke” their errors (2 Timothy 4:2). This is the legacy of historical Protestantism; more importantly, it is God’s commandment.

Disclaimer: The comments section is a public platform. The views expressed in the comments section belong to the individual commenters and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the site or its authors. The site and its authors disclaim any liability for the comments posted.

Keep the comment section civil, focussed and respectful.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *