This study examines the roots of ongoing debates about religion and politics and also places the early‐modern founders of liberalism in conversation with today's theologians and political philosophers. Beginning with examples that range from Antigone to debates about homosexuality and bans on religious attire, liberalism's promise to definitively solve all theopolitical conflict is seen to be a false hope. The liberal trajectory that runs from John Locke to John Rawls seeks to create a world with sharp boundaries between religious and civic duties. Yet disputes such as the culture wars cannot ... More

This study examines the roots of ongoing debates about religion and politics and also places the early‐modern founders of liberalism in conversation with today's theologians and political philosophers. Beginning with examples that range from Antigone to debates about homosexuality and bans on religious attire, liberalism's promise to definitively solve all theopolitical conflict is seen to be a false hope. The liberal trajectory that runs from John Locke to John Rawls seeks to create a world with sharp boundaries between religious and civic duties. Yet disputes such as the culture wars cannot be adequately comprehended as border encroachments. Instead, theopolitical conflict is a contest of loyalties that lie within each citizen and believer. Certain critics of Rawls make a “turn to loyalty” by recognizing the inadequacy of the usual thinking on the topic. This is connected to more vigorous critics such as Stanley Hauerwas, Stanley Fish, William Cavanaugh, and Leo Strauss. By examining Locke's overlooked early work, where he opposed religious freedom, we learn that toleration is seen as more sophisticated, more theologically subtle—and ultimately more problematic—than is usually supposed. It demands not just governmental neutrality but also a reworked political theology. The book concludes with a survey of various attempts to redeem liberalism from its pitfalls. These include those presented by Nicholas Wolterstorff, John Witte, Richard John Neuhaus, Martha Nussbaum, and others, who represent perspectives such as evangelical, secular, neo‐Calvinist, and Catholic. Finding none of these adequate, the book ends by suggesting where we might turn next by considering possibilities obscured by the liberalism we have inherited.