Yes, Christ the King rejects coercive relationship. In order to deal with those who choose to reject His offering of reconciliation, He delegated rule in the kingdoms of this world to the devil. All the kingdoms of this world are expressions of Babylon. It is necessary that Babylonians should rule over Babylonians. Christians are by their nature unsuited to ruling over them.
Another thoughtful post; I like the breakdown of three main positions toward religious coercion one can take, going from 1) Coercion of Catholicism to 2) Coercion of Christianity to 3) Lack of coercion on matters of faith, but with a recognition of the higher spiritual dimension of man.
However, I would rename the second category for clarity. What you call "postliberal" might better be described as pre-integralist or even "Protestant Integralism." I think the postliberal position is an extremely wide net; it describes any successor regime to liberalism that rejects some or all of liberalism's major premises. This could manifest as anything from an atheistic far-right regime to integralism to a coercive neo-Marxist woke communist order.
My personal hope is for a postliberalism that acknowledges liberalism's successes and learns from its failures, and reigns in some of the flawed premises of liberalism while retaining aspects of the values of freedom, equality, and human brotherhood while orienting these around principles of the natural law, complete with state coercion of morality where appropriate. Discussions of a moderate or hard integralism seem to me pie in the sky, as today a coercive integralism is unlikely to create stability in our populace, which is increasingly secular. But I would not call this position liberal.
I like your point about freedom to accept or reject Christ, which is a notion that I've also had. I'm not sure if the faith were presented to me in a completely heavy-handed or draconian way, I would be inclined toward it. But I do want to bring up a few counterpoints --
1) Freedom does not mean freedom to do good or evil as one wills, but freedom to choose from among that which is good. Under such a view, man could be completely free even if he had no ability to reject God. This is more of a philosophical consideration, but an important point as it differentiates the liberal conception of freedom from a more traditional/classical understanding.
2) To some extent, we all learn the truth through coercion. We are not radically atomized individuals who stand outside human nature and make totally free and rational choices. We learn from our parents, our society, and yes, our state. We are molded by the corrective efforts of our parents when we err. We are molded by the public morality and taboos of our society. And we are molded by the laws enforced by the state. There is nothing wrong with a parent raising up their child in a Christian way. Similarly, there is nothing wrong with a society or state doing so to a degree and within reason.
As a final note, the top position describes an integralism in practice, which author's like Feser say is not the required position of integralists as such. To him, an integralist is simply one who thinks some form of integralism is the proper order and ideal state, but that it may not be wise or achievable in practice in all contexts.
Yes, Christ the King rejects coercive relationship. In order to deal with those who choose to reject His offering of reconciliation, He delegated rule in the kingdoms of this world to the devil. All the kingdoms of this world are expressions of Babylon. It is necessary that Babylonians should rule over Babylonians. Christians are by their nature unsuited to ruling over them.
Another thoughtful post; I like the breakdown of three main positions toward religious coercion one can take, going from 1) Coercion of Catholicism to 2) Coercion of Christianity to 3) Lack of coercion on matters of faith, but with a recognition of the higher spiritual dimension of man.
However, I would rename the second category for clarity. What you call "postliberal" might better be described as pre-integralist or even "Protestant Integralism." I think the postliberal position is an extremely wide net; it describes any successor regime to liberalism that rejects some or all of liberalism's major premises. This could manifest as anything from an atheistic far-right regime to integralism to a coercive neo-Marxist woke communist order.
My personal hope is for a postliberalism that acknowledges liberalism's successes and learns from its failures, and reigns in some of the flawed premises of liberalism while retaining aspects of the values of freedom, equality, and human brotherhood while orienting these around principles of the natural law, complete with state coercion of morality where appropriate. Discussions of a moderate or hard integralism seem to me pie in the sky, as today a coercive integralism is unlikely to create stability in our populace, which is increasingly secular. But I would not call this position liberal.
I like your point about freedom to accept or reject Christ, which is a notion that I've also had. I'm not sure if the faith were presented to me in a completely heavy-handed or draconian way, I would be inclined toward it. But I do want to bring up a few counterpoints --
1) Freedom does not mean freedom to do good or evil as one wills, but freedom to choose from among that which is good. Under such a view, man could be completely free even if he had no ability to reject God. This is more of a philosophical consideration, but an important point as it differentiates the liberal conception of freedom from a more traditional/classical understanding.
2) To some extent, we all learn the truth through coercion. We are not radically atomized individuals who stand outside human nature and make totally free and rational choices. We learn from our parents, our society, and yes, our state. We are molded by the corrective efforts of our parents when we err. We are molded by the public morality and taboos of our society. And we are molded by the laws enforced by the state. There is nothing wrong with a parent raising up their child in a Christian way. Similarly, there is nothing wrong with a society or state doing so to a degree and within reason.
As a final note, the top position describes an integralism in practice, which author's like Feser say is not the required position of integralists as such. To him, an integralist is simply one who thinks some form of integralism is the proper order and ideal state, but that it may not be wise or achievable in practice in all contexts.