High Tory Nationalist Meets Tory Comprador
George Grant “has been called Canada’s greatest political philosopher,”
and Clark Pinnock has been called “perhaps the most significant
evangelical theologian of the last half of the twentieth century.”
George Grant was also a philosopher and theologian just as Clark
Pinnock was a political philosopher. Both men are Canadians, both men
taught in Hamilton at McMaster (University and Divinity School), and
both men have been seen as conservatives. But, Grant’s understanding of
conservatism is quite different from Pinnock’s understanding of
conservatism.
Grant’s
political theology is deeply rooted and grounded in the subtle
synthesis of Classical thought as fed through the English High Tory
Tradition of Hooker, Swift, Coleridge and applied to the Canadian
nationalist context, whereas Pinnock’s political theology is, in
principle, Biblical, but, in interpretive fact, a form of
Lockean/Smithean liberalism and, consequently, American republican.
Grant is, consciously so, an Anglo-
Canadian High Tory nationalist whereas Pinnock is, consciously so, a liberal Anglo-
American republican. Grant was an Anglican Christian, whereas Pinnock
is a Baptist Christian. How is it that both men can be seen as
conservative and yet their understanding of conservatism is, almost, at
polar opposite ends of the political spectrum? Grant never writes about
Pinnock, and yet they were both in the Hamilton area for many years,
and Pinnock is silent on Grant. Why is it that “Canada’s greatest
political philosopher” and “the most significant evangelical theologian
of the last half of the twentieth century” never really met and engaged
in serious dialogue? Or, were the premises, prejudices, worldviews, and
presuppositions they were starting from so different that their
understanding of political theology could never be reconciled?
There are, obviously, points of affinity between George Grant and Clark
Pinnock, and these should be noted at the outset. There are five areas
in which Grant and Pinnock could, in some ways, agree and shake hands.
First, Pinnock has, in his courageous life, attempted to think outside
the box of a constrictive theological rationalism. Pinnock has, to his
credit, attempted to live in the needful tension between God’s abundant
grace and human responsibility. This has offended many in the
evangelical Calvinist Sanhedrin. Pinnock has tried, wisely so, to blend
Calvin and Wesley, Augustine and Pelagius; he should be applauded
rather than maligned for doing so. Grant was raised as a Presbyterian
(English Calvinist), but he turned to the Anglican way for the simple
reason that he saw more to theology than a servile attachment to
Calvin. Pinnock and Grant stand with an understanding of the Christian
Tradition that does not sever grace from human responsibility.
Second, Pinnock’s notion of “open theism” has raised the dander of many
within the broader evangelical tribe, and his idea that God does not
know the future and is generous and gracious to the end does conflict
with notions such as election and double election, predestination and a
more open ended view of history. Pinnock is willing, also, like C.S.
Lewis (who has taught him much) to see that there are seeds of insight
and wisdom in religious and philosophic traditions other than
Christianity. In short, theology does crown philosophy just as grace
fulfills the longings of nature. We can find in George Grant much the
same thing. He turned to those like the Fathers of the Church in the
East and West, just as deeply admired the life and writings of Simone
Weil. Both the Fathers of the Patristic Era (who held a high view of
the contemplative theology of Plato) and Simone Weil were quick to
acknowledge that the Greeks, Romans and Eastern Traditions had much
insight Christians could learn from to their gain and profit. Indeed,
Athens had much to teach Jerusalem just as Jerusalem had much to teach
Athens. This need not be an either-or clash. Pinnock and Grant had much
in common in this area. Grant was a Platonic Anglican (this is an
ancient line and lineage) and Pinnock thought certain theological wars
need not be fought, and he has sought to declare a peace between such
tribes and clans.
Third, both take the Bible and the Christian Tradition seriously, but
they did differ on how the Bible should be interpreted and what part of
the Tradition should be more of an authority than another part. Grant
was, as I mentioned above, Anglican, and Pinnock is Baptist, and at
core and centre such traditions do begin and end in different places.
There are, in short, deeper interpretive principles at work in these
two traditions that predefine how both the Bible and the Tradition
should be interpreted. The Baptist tradition is protestant and emerges
from within the protestant liberal tradition of liberty, equality,
conscience and individualism, whereas the Classical Anglican tradition
is more about the commonweal, the role of state and society in
providing for such a common good, order and good government. The Bible
and Tradition might, in a formal sense, be held high, but the deeper
interpretive principles are the real authority. Anglicans are
magisterial and deeply catholic, Baptists and evangelicals tend to be
anti-statist and liberty-loving liberals in the area of the
marketplace, their fear of the state and their rights to interpret the
Bible and worship as conscience dictates.
Fourth, Pinnock and Grant are, in many ways, social conservatives.
Both, for different reasons, hold high the importance of family,
question the pro-choice movement, doubt a too eager drift to euthanasia
and call into question the problems of our secular and relativistic
society. Both men hold high standards that cannot be reduced to values.
This stance by Grant and Pinnock on these social issues seems to place
both men more on the political right.
Fifth, both men affirm the notion that theology and spirituality must
be worked out within the context of the life of the church. Grant and
Pinnock have butted horns with both their Anglican and
Baptist/Evangelical Sanhedrins, and such clashes have not been easy to
think through and live with, but loyalty and criticism have, prophetic
like, been lived and held in tension.
These five points seem to bring Grant and Pinnock together and define
them as conservatives. But, it is in their stark differences that their
view of conservatism takes them down different paths. How, then, are
Grant and Pinnock different as political theologians? There are five
areas (there are others, of course) to note and flag here.
First, Pinnock’s liberty loving ways has meant, in his political
journey, he has turned to both the American anarchist left and
republican right as his north star. American anti-statist models of the
political left and right have tended to dominate his political theology.
Pinnock rarely turns to indigenous Anglo-Canadian or Canadian
intellectual history for his north star. The Bible is interpreted
through distinctly liberal-Baptist-republican eyes and lens. Grant, on
the other hand, has a high view of the state, and the role of the
Canadian state in bringing about the commonweal. This does not mean the
state should and cannot be criticized; it should when it violates its
high calling. But abuse does not prohibit use. Pinnock tends to lean
more in the direction of society for bringing in the common good,
whereas Grant recognizes both the state and society can and do err, and
it is crucial to hold both together in a living tension. Grant was very
much welcomed by the political left for his more statist thinking,
whereas the statist left has never applauded Pinnock.
Second, Pinnock tended, as I have mentioned above to see the American
empire (although imperfect, flawed and finite) as the best of the
political worst. It was the USA, was it not, that ended the rule and
reign of communism, and it is the USA that best embodies the values of
liberty and democracy. Grant has, for the most part, seen the USA as an
empire like Rome, and he consistently argued that Canada was built on
different foundations stones than the empire to the south. This, of
course, is the irony of Pinnock and Grant. Pinnock seems to be
anti-statist yet he becomes most statist when it comes to supporting
the American empire in many ways. In a sense, Christian American
republicanism is just a form of Neo-Constantinianism. Grant saw serious
and fatal flaws in the American theological, philosophic and political
tradition, and he never would have turned to it as a guide and model in
the same way Pinnock has in his political journey.
Third, Pinnock has had a tendency to applaud the market economy as the
best way to bring about a just and equitable world, and minimize the
state. The idea that the state has a role to distribute wealth and
intervene and manage the economy has not sat well with Pinnock. This
smacks of socialism to Pinnock, and socialism we must avoid and spurn
at all costs. Grant, on the other hand, has argued that the Canadian
state needs to be strong to protect and assure Canadian citizens of
justice and keep the Americans at bay. It is hard to imagine Pinnock
being a Canadian nationalist: Grant was. Pinnock was, in many ways, an
apologist for American nationalism. This turn, as a Canadian, to the
USA for political models makes Pinnock a Canadian comprador theologian
and liberal colonial, whereas George Grant was very much an
Anglo-Canadian High Tory nationalist. It is quite easy, of course, to
see the roots of Pinnock’s political theology in those like
Ernest/Preston Manning and Stephen Harper (Alberta being our most
American of Canadian provinces), whereas the High Toryism of George
Grant is more indebted to those like Stephen Lea*censored*, John
Diefenbaker and Sir. John A. Macdonald. We see little of this family
tree in Clark Pinnock.
Fourth, it is easy to see how Pinnock stands very much within the
ideological liberal and republican right both within the classical
English liberal tradition and the American and Canadian republican
traditions. All the ducks are lined up and in perfect and predictable
order. George Grant, on the other hand, seems to be on the political
right when it comes to social questions, but when it comes to larger
economic, military, environmental and statist questions, he seems to be
more on the political left. The New Left was quite drawn to Grant in
the 1950s-1960s-1970s just as the New Right was drawn to Grant’s social
position in the 1970s-1980s. Grant defies political categorization in a
way that Pinnock does not. Pinnock is a liberal republican that seeks
to conserve such a liberal republican way, whereas Grant seeks to
conserve a tradition much older than the protestant and liberal way of
either the English or American traditions. Grant goes back to Plato and
the politics of the Patristics, he holds high the political theology of
More and Hooker, Swift and Coleridge, Disraeli and Macdonald,
Diefenbaker and Lea*censored*. This is not Pinnock’s family tree. In
short, Grant seeks to conserve a tradition that is much older than the
synthesis of the Bible and Smith/Locke. Grant found such a synthesis
the true compromising and assimilation of the Christian faith to
American liberal and imperial aims and ambitions.
Fifth, Grant and Pinnock were both deeply shaped and influenced by the
life and writings of the prominent Anglican, C.S. Lewis, but Grant and
Pinnock interpreted Lewis in quite different ways. There has been a
worrisome tendency amongst American republicans to read and interpret
Lewis to serve and suit American right of centre politics. Lewis was
much too profound and nimble a thinker to be co-opted by such an
ideology. But, Pinnock tends to stand within such a tradition. Grant
read Lewis in more of a Classical high Tory way, and his read of Lewis
in such a manner did much to shape his understanding of a more
consistent approach to social, economic and political issues. Grant, of
course, walked much further than Lewis down the political path and
trail, but there is little doubt he and Pinnock read Lewis in a
different way and manner. I’d suggest reading an article I wrote on
this website to follow this lead more (“C.S. Lewis: The Culture Wars:
November 25/2004”).
In sum, Grant takes us, as Canadians, to a way of doing political
theology that Pinnock does not. Grant opens up for both Christians and
Canadians a way of doing theology and politics that allows us to think
outside the matrix of American liberalism and imperialism.
Grant offers Canadians a way of doing political theology that is
neither ideologically on the left or right. He knows how to think
outside of matrix of liberalism in a way that Pinnock is enmeshed
within. Grant was very much a political prophet of both empire and
liberalism in a way Pinnock never has been, and this is why it is both
right and accurate to see Grant as “Canada’s greatest political
philosopher,” and, I might add, greatest political theologian. Grant
does political theology is a way that is profoundly prophetic, whereas
the political theology of Pinnock is much more ideological. Perhaps,
Pinnock, “the most significant evangelical theologian of the last half
of the twentieth century” has much to learn from “Canada’s greatest
political theologian.” Canada does not need more comprador and colonial
theologians that turn to the USA as their Polaris and North Star.
Pinnock does this, and this is his fault and failing. Grant does not do
this, and this is where he shines as a distinctly Canadian prophetic
political theologian. We are in desperate need for more George Grant’s
in Canada at this time of a distorted understanding of Harperite
conservatism is Canada. May the hard work of Grant bear much counter
culture fruit in the future in the True North. The politics of the
anarchist left and republican right will not do no more than the
ideology of the right, left and sensible centre. Grant points the way
beyond these tendencies and trends and we do well to see where he
points and why.
rsd