Liberalism and Evangelism

  Cheol-young Lee

Head of the International Affairs Research Association

Introduction  

Humanity has long lived in an era dominated by liberalism. Since the modern era, the wave of liberalism has swept across the world, reshaping social landscapes. Today, we experience its legacy in the Republic of Korea, a liberal-democratic state. Of course, the contemporary global political and social arena sees the rise of non-liberal currents—conservatism, far-right movements, populism, nationalism (Laruelle, 2022)—but it is hard to deny that liberalism remains the central pillar defining the current world order.

Francis Fukuyama (2022), renowned for his debates with Samuel Huntington (author of The Clash of Civilizations), explains why liberalism is essential to our society using three arguments. He claims that liberalism has enriched our lives through its practicality, morality, and economic benefits, and that history shows the modern era and liberalism to be inseparable.

However, when viewed from the perspective of evangelism, the story of liberalism’s achievements takes on a somewhat different form. This article does not intend to critique or diminish liberalism’s contributions. Rather, while acknowledging its role in human development, it aims to examine its influence on modern evangelism, focusing on the three core justifications for liberalism that Fukuyama has presented.

Defining Liberalism and Its Difference from Democracy  

Gray (1986) defines liberalism as an ideology rooted in individualism and egalitarianism, marked by universality and institutional reform optimism. In a liberal society, the core right is the right to autonomy, encompassing freedom of speech, association, belief, and political participation.

Many equate liberalism with democracy or consider it a subset of democracy, but strictly speaking, the two concepts rest on different principles and institutional foundations. Democracy typically involves universal adult suffrage, multi-party elections, and governance by the people. Liberalism, by contrast, centers on the rule of law and emphasizes formal rules that limit even democratically legitimized executive power.

Thus, liberalism and democracy are not necessarily synonymous. For example, Russia holds regular elections, thus maintaining a democratic façade, but it undermines the rule of law and individual rights—the core elements of liberal democracy—by exercising strong state control. Even Vladimir Putin insists on holding ‘elections’ and values popular support, but he views liberalism as an outdated “old doctrine,” suppresses critics, jails or removes opponents, and dismantles independent civil spheres (Barber, Foy, 2019). In Hungary, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán openly aims to build an “illiberal democracy” within the heart of the European Union (Tóth, 2014). In today’s world, liberalism faces more challenges than democracy does.

Three Justifications for Liberalism

Despite these challenges, many still defend liberalism’s legitimacy and strive to uphold it. Liberalism’s social value has long been supported by three main arguments. First is a pragmatic justification: liberalism curbs violence and provides a framework for people of diverse backgrounds to coexist peacefully. Second is a moral justification: liberalism guarantees fundamental human dignity and autonomy—the right for each person to make their own choices. Lastly, liberalism is justified by economic grounds: by protecting property rights and economic freedom, it fosters economic growth and individual prosperity.

The Birth of Liberalism and its Pragmatic Justification

To understand the pragmatic justification of liberalism, we must examine the historical context in which it emerged. Liberalism arose in the mid-17th century, toward the end of 150 years of religious warfare in Europe. During these conflicts triggered by the Reformation, about one-third of Central Europe’s population perished due to war, famine, and disease. These atrocities were not merely economic or political but were exacerbated by religious zeal, with each faction attempting to impose its doctrine on others (Fukuyama, 2011).

Events such as Martin Luther’s confrontation with Emperor Charles V, conflicts between the Catholic League and the Huguenots in France, and King Henry VIII’s establishment of the Church of England exemplify these religious tensions. The era was rife with theological disputes—between Anglicans, Zwinglians, and Lutherans—often resulting in brutal punishments like burnings at the stake or public executions.

In this chaos, liberalism emerged, shifting the political aim from pursuing a “good life” grounded in religious ideals to securing life itself—peace and safety. Classical liberalism offered an institutional solution for managing diversity in pluralistic societies, with tolerance at its core. Citizens could hold their own beliefs without forcing them upon others.

Liberalism pushes debates about ultimate truths outside the realm of politics, easing political tensions. Individuals may freely hold their beliefs but must not coerce fellow citizens to accept them. This principle proved crucial in heterogeneous societies like the United States, where attempts to form a national identity based on race, religion, or specific values risked violent conflict. The American Civil War stands as a testament to such dangers; afterward, the nation moved toward acknowledging diversity under liberal principles.

The 1648 Treaty of Westphalia applied this liberal principle of tolerance across the continent, contributing to European stability. But while liberalism brought peace, it also weakened trust in traditional norms and absolute truths, ushering in a postmodern era that values relativism over absolutes.

From an evangelistic perspective, the liberal worldview poses a fundamental challenge. Jesus Christ said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). Liberalism rejects the notion that one faith alone can claim the truth. When evangelizing in a pluralistic environment, this conflict becomes clear.

For instance, in the Middle East, even Muslims or Jews often refrain from asserting their religion as the only path, instead acknowledging that other religious ways might be valid. This approach aims to avoid unnecessary conflict and prioritize peaceful coexistence over the pursuit of absolute truth—a hallmark of the liberal mindset. But this stands in opposition to the absolute truth of the Gospel. While liberalism prioritizes human tolerance and harmony, evangelism focuses on human salvation and the proclamation of truth.

In essence, liberalism, which has practically maintained modern social peace, holds an inherent limitation when it comes to evangelism’s spiritual mission. Its pluralistic ethos fundamentally clashes with Christianity’s emphasis on the exclusivity and fullness of the Gospel truth.

Liberalism and Human Dignity  

Liberal societies claim to protect human dignity by granting autonomy equally to all citizens. Liberalism considers the ability to make one’s own life choices—regarding one’s life goals, occupation, spouse, residence, personal associations, and beliefs—as an essential human trait. According to this view, universal human dignity is rooted in each individual’s capacity for autonomy, not in attributes like intelligence, appearance, or skin color.

By law, liberalism protects this autonomy, ensuring freedoms of speech, association, and belief. Over time, these rights extended to political participation, such as voting, intertwining liberalism with democracy. Many consider democracy a natural outcome of liberalism’s emphasis on collective autonomy.

Liberalism is also closely tied to a certain epistemological foundation. With the scientific method considered the best way to understand and manipulate the external world, individuals are assumed to be the best judges of their own interests. This assumption leads to a marketplace of ideas, where debate and evidence allow superior ideas to replace inferior ones. This principle underpins modern representative democracy. But are individuals always the best judges of their own interests?

Jean-Paul Sartre (1905–1980), a prominent French philosopher, discussed freedom and human dignity at the existential and philosophical levels. He insisted that “existence precedes essence,” meaning that human beings are not defined by an external purpose but must create their own essence through their choices. Sartre’s existentialism, which criticizes Christian predestination, emphasizes individual freedom and autonomy. His ideas contributed greatly to philosophical advancement by casting human equality and dignity in a new light.

Sartre’s assertion aligns closely with modern liberalism. The liberal attitude that “my life is mine to decide” locates human dignity in autonomous choice. While this seems an attractive ideal, it reveals a fundamental limitation from a biblical perspective. Scripture encourages people to design their lives according to God’s guidance and purposes. It does not merely restrict human freedom but provides a path to fully realize that freedom within truth.

One of the greatest challenges evangelism faces in modern society is this liberal worldview that elevates human autonomy as the highest good. Many contemporary people, especially younger generations, reject the Gospel because they do not want to limit their lives within God’s Word. This issue is not confined to non-Christians. Even believers who confess Jesus as Lord often prefer to enjoy blessings like those of the faith’s ancestors rather than walking the path of suffering that Scripture outlines.

Liberalism locates human dignity in personal choice and autonomy. However, Scripture teaches that true dignity is realized only when a person abides in God and lives according to His Word. Human dignity does not originate from autonomous choice alone, but becomes complete when one dwells in God and lives in the truth. This clarifies why the Gospel must remain an unchanging truth even within a liberal worldview.

Liberalism and Economic Growth  

For 19th-century liberals, one of the most critical forms of autonomy was the right to buy, sell, and invest freely in the market. Property rights lie at the heart of the liberal agenda, implemented through legal frameworks that mitigate risks in trade and investment and ensure contract enforcement. Without reliable protections, entrepreneurs would not invest. Thus, property rights required comprehensive legal mechanisms, including independent courts, lawyers and bar associations, and a police force to enforce judgments (Fukuyama, 2014).

Property rights were central to liberal orders long before freedom of assembly or universal suffrage emerged. Countries like England and the Netherlands, which established strong property rights early on, formed entrepreneurial merchant classes and experienced explosive economic growth. In North America, English common law protected property rights in the colonies even before independence, spurring economic development. In Germany, the Prussian General Land Law of 1794 protected property rights, providing legal stability long before democracy took root. Such legal protections facilitated Germany’s rapid industrialization in the late 19th century and its emergence as an economic powerhouse in the early 20th century.

The relationship between classical liberalism and economic growth is not incidental. From the 1800s to today, per capita production in liberal systems has increased by about 3,000%, allowing all economic classes, including the working class, to enjoy levels of health, longevity, and material abundance once unknown even to the privileged. This growth, a product of economic modernization, gave rise to a new middle class—the bourgeoisie, as Karl Marx called it—which became a powerful supporter of liberalism’s economic legitimacy.

Yet this material prosperity, brought forth by liberalism’s emphasis on property rights and economic freedom, often moves humanity further from the Gospel. While it yields material wealth, it can clash with biblical values and limit humanity’s ultimate purpose to material possession and achievement. Even wealthy churches have sometimes repeated the mistakes of the medieval Catholic Church amid this prosperity. Jesus warned, “No one can serve two masters… You cannot serve both God and money” (Matthew 6:24), and “where your treasure is, there your heart will be also” (Matthew 6:21). But the wealth produced by liberalism often leads people to immerse themselves in secular values, drifting away from faith in God.

Conclusion  

Liberalism has enabled humanity to recognize diversity, reduce conflict, and achieve harmony. It has emphasized individual choice, upheld human dignity, and facilitated enormous economic growth through secure property rights and free markets. Yet we live in an era where truth has become obscured. Society considers the liberal attitude of “I decide my own life” to be the ultimate virtue, and money and material success are viewed as the highest goals.

As the limitations of liberalism become apparent, non-liberal movements are rising worldwide. These movements reject extreme relativism and attempt to usher in a new era—Post Post-modernism. However, it is still uncertain whether these non-liberal currents will positively influence the spread of the Gospel. This emerging trend is only at its beginning, and further scholarly examination is needed.

What is crucial is the fact that no worldly ideology can undermine the power of the Gospel. Scripture states, “The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world… They have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:4–5).

For over 2,000 years, the Gospel has advanced through countless ideological challenges and historical crises because it is not merely a human idea but the power of God. Regardless of which ideology prevails in the world, God’s Word continues to go forth to all nations, and the light of the Gospel will never be extinguished.

References

Barber, L., & Foy, H. (2019, June 28) Vladimir Putin Says Liberalism Has ‘Become Obsolete’. Financial Times. https://www.ft.com/content/670039ec-98f3-11e9-9573-ee5cbb98ed36

Fukuyama, F. (2011). The Origins of Political Order: From Prehuman Times to the French Revolution. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux Press.

Fukuyama, F. (2014) Political Order and Political Decay: From the Industrial Revolution to the Globalization of Democracy. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux Press.

Fukuyama, F. (2022). Liberalism And Its Discontents. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux Press.

Gray, J. (1986). Liberalism. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.

Laruelle, M. (2022). Illiberalism: a conceptual introduction. East European Politics, 38(2), 303-327.

Tóth, C. J. (2014, July 29) Full Text of Viktor Orbăn’s Speech at Báile Tuşnad (Tusnádfürdő) of 26 July 2014, The Budapest Beacon.