Way back in 1997, Peter Berkowitz published a review of David Walsh's The Growth of the Liberal Soul . It's a notable title, since one of the charges of post-liberals is that liberalism has no soul. But Walsh's thesis is worth revisiting now that there is widespread questioning of the liberal project . Berkowitz sums up part of Walsh's explanation of the "existential appeal" of liberalism. That appeals is rooted in: "liberal tradition’s ability to give political expression to the principle or moral belief, widely shared among modern men and women, that the individual is sacred, the unique bearer of a fundamental human dignity. Walsh sees this belief as part of the Christian heritage of the West—and again, he is by no means the first to view the liberal tradition as in considerable measure a secular and political development of Christian morality. But he is not simply siding with those conservatives who argue that the secularization of Christianity in liberalism has betrayed its patrimony and is rapidly depleting its accumulated moral capital. Rather, Walsh sees in the liberal tradition a distinctive development and deepening on the political plane of the Christian belief in the transcendent dignity of the human being; but he sees that this development and deepening have come to endanger liberalism’s genuine achievements by cutting the liberal spirit off from the sources that sustain it. Berkowitz argues that the erosion of this existential core or "animating spirit" is the center of contemporary political upheavals: "When Christian belief was strong and widely shared, when an unspoken and deeply felt moral consensus about the sanctity of the individual prevailed, liberal regimes could function quite well without a fine-grained articulation of the goodness of freedom. But when these sustaining beliefs are shaken or corroded, articulating the moral sources of the liberal spirit takes on a new urgency." That articulation has not been accomplished, with the result that "ethos of liberal neutrality seems to have at last forced liberalism to become neutral regarding its own goodness. The liberal longing for increasingly comprehensive kinds of freedom has come to threaten the respect for limits and order that are freedom’s precondition." All this raises the critical questions: Can liberalism survive when its Christian foundations are eroded? And, if liberalism now rests on a foundation that is literally nihil , is it worth preserving?
Peter Leithart
Peter J. Leithart is President of Theopolis Institute. He is the author of numerous books on theology, literature, and culture, including Theopolitan, Defending Constantine, and Baptized Body.
More from Liberalism
Continue reading related articles

Ecclesiocentrism
Ecclesiocentrism is both a theoretical framework and a practical agenda for a Christian politics after liberalism. THEORY 1. The gospel is an inherently political message, announcing the Lordship and Kingship of Jesus. 2. Christian political theory is ecclesiology. Or, more moderately, no political theory can be Christian without a central…

World After Liberalism
In A World After Liberalism , Matthew Rose takes note of a generational change taking place in American conservatism. Younger conservatives associated with the alt right don’t read the same writers as their elders: “Instead of William Buckley it is Curtis Yarvin. Instead of Milton Friedman it is Peter Thiel.…

Kingdom of Cupidity
Writing in the 1670s, Pierre Nicole turned the pessimistic anthropology of Jansenism into an apology for liberal order. "Men," he wrote, "being devoid of charity out of the derailment of sin, remain none the less filled with needs and are dependent on one another in countless ways." How can these…
In Medias Res
Your weekly digest for all things Theopolis.