Christian Discussion Thread IV

[Othelos]

not what I was saying at all

Then why would you come to a christian discussion, not being a christian yourself (I assume), and tell us that our morals don't matter?

that's not what I was trying to say (and I apologize if it came off that way). I'm asking how/what we should change, so that Christianity doesn't decline.

[The Sanguinian Islands]

Then why would you come to a christian discussion, not being a christian yourself (I assume), and tell us that our morals don't matter?

that's not what I was trying to say (and I apologize if it came off that way). I'm asking how/what we should change, so that Christianity doesn't decline.

Change is just showing the iconoclasts that they are right.

[Angleter]

Yes, but I don't think the west has ever had this level of sexual freedom before, and many restrictions in Christianity are in regards to sexual behavior.

No culture in human history has ever had the kind of sexual freedom that present-day Western culture has, but I'm not sure about "levels".

Culturally-approved sexual freedom for young people (as long as no one gets pregnant, at least) is common in many cultures throughout human history. The thing that makes present-day Western culture special isn't really the pre-marital sex, it's the fact that there is no culturally-enforced expectation to settle down and get married for life around the age of 18-23 or so. That is the first great sexual innovation of the West: not sexual freedom for teenagers, but sexual freedom for older people.

Also, the normalization of divorce is another big innovation. Most cultures past and present have divorce as an option, but an extreme option, to be used only in case of adultery, or if the husband abandons the wife, or if there is domestic violence, etc. No-fault divorce - and the fact that it has become so widespread - is the second great sexual innovation of present-day Western culture.

The third great sexual innovation of present-day Western culture is the normalization of porn. Porn has always existed in some form, but it has never been so widespread, and it has never been tolerated as a normal part of culture.

And the fourth is the normalization of long-term homosexual relationships that are intended to copy heterosexual marriage. Homosexuality as such was tolerated in many cultures, and even actively encouraged in some, but it was never before expected to manifest itself in the same way as heterosexuality. Gay lovers are common in many cultures. Gay husbands, no.

In fact, I'm noticing a pattern here. In many cultures, sexual freedom, easy separation from a partner, consuming pornography, and having homosexual relationships, are things expected for young men, but not for women or men beyond the age of 25 or so. Thus, I suppose it could be said that what makes present-day Western culture different is that people of all ages and both sexes are expected to have the sexual habits of teenage men. A culture of boys. That explains a lot...

But to bring this back to Christianity: The sexual restrictions in Christianity are (or should be) a minor or secondary part of the religion. Christians have certainly never considered them a particularly important part of their faith, until recent times. The only reason they have suddenly become so prominent over the last few decades is because Western culture has drifted so far from Christian sexual standards (note: culture was never completely in line with them in the first place, but recently it has gone especially far in the other direction), and Christians have reacted to this by elevating these secondary concerns to the status of central tenets of the faith. Meanwhile, the real central tenets of the faith are getting increasingly neglected.

Another innovation is the half-rectification of double standards applied to men and women's sexual activities. Attitudes to promiscuity haven't really changed - women are still 'slut shamed', while, if anything, it's perhaps more widely applauded for men. Attitudes to chastity are, interestingly enough, what have changed more - for women, it's gone from encouraged to a cause for embarrassment (leaving them damned either way), while for men it's gone from perhaps a bit odd to being a cause for extreme embarrassment. Certainly, Western culture is far from being settled on sexual morality right now.

[Angleter]

I've been thinking: the reason why Christianity (not just Christianity itself, but also religiosity) is declining among younger people in America, I think, is because it's losing its relevance to our lives. Why would I spend time worrying about sins that no one else thinks about? All over tv and our culture, people do things that are strictly forbidden by the bible. Like pre-marital sex, for example. It's actually expected, at this point, and it seems really weird if you don't do anything with the other person.

Basically, as people disregard more and more traditional ideas of morality, and come to realize that nothing bad is happening to them, then the basic line of thinking is: what's the problem?

Also, as cultural expectations drift away from christian ideals, Christianity will seem more and more remote. This is exemplified by acceptance of LGBT people by the younger generations. We're scratching our heads as to why it's so wrong for two people to be in a loving, monogamous relationship, regardless of gender, but most churches are screaming "No!". It seems pointless, and annoying. So why continue believing in something we disagree with? That's not to say that the belief in god is declining, just the religion itself.

So anyway, my question to you guys is this: how can Christianity stay relevant, or is it doomed to a steady decline?

There are some things we'll have to get used to, first of which is that the Establishment - political, cultural, and media (especially the last two) - are not on our side, and don't really understand our religion. This makes it difficult from the off. 'Compromising' on doctrine to suit society, as well as being theologically impossible for most denominations, doesn't work - the denominations that do are actually declining at an even faster rate than the others - but rather gets those denominations token appreciation from a secular society that then continues about its daily lives, no more interested in practising Christianity, but perhaps slightly less inclined to believe all Christianity is a Bad Thing. Like Kongar-ol Ondar on Letterman - everyone watching applauded him and appreciated what he was doing, but I'd wager that very few actually bought that album, and fewer still went to any concerts or joined a fan club.

The key is understanding the zeitgeist that's prevailed these last fifty years - it's all about individualism and postmodernism. Much like the decline of organised Christianity, mass membership political parties have gone downhill too, because people have become less tribal and more willing to form their own opinions and consider themselves their own supreme authority on politics and religion/morals, rather than political or religious leaders. It's not a trend against theism per se, but against organised theism with a claim to absolute truth. People are forming their own moral codes that just so happen to agree with them on everything and don't demand much by way of ritual - some still have a veneer of 'Christianity' over that, but it's edging more and more towards 'spiritual but not religious', or simply 'not religious'. Atheism (that is, the empiricist New Atheism) is gaining popularity much like Calvinism did in the 16th century, when Catholicism lost its teaching authority and Protestantism was a broad and loose movement - it's simply explained, it's logically consistent, and it appeals to intellectuals. Unfortunately for Christianity, secularisation in education especially has meant that catechesis has nosedived - people now know far less about their Christian denomination and its beliefs than their parents or grandparents did, since they're not nearly taught it as much, and as a result it's more difficult than ever for us to explain Christianity and why it makes sense. That's compounded by the fact that we have a media and a cultural elite that doesn't understand Christianity either, and isn't particularly friendly towards it.

So the point is that there are elements of today's culture which puts us well and truly on the back foot. Society is postmodern, and thus highly sceptical towards claims of absolute truth. As widespread, coherent philosophies go, we're up against one that is more easily explained and more obviously logically consistent than ours, and is more at ease with this zeitgeist (atheists are still free to make up their own moral code, even if their cosmology's 'off-the-peg'), at a time when we have no real advantage in terms of education and the main outlets for information and argument aren't on our side. What we have to focus on instead is damage limitation - stabilising the numbers and avoiding persecution - and wait for (or help bring about) a wider cultural change towards one that's friendlier to a full-on re-Christianisation. Working on how to state our faith concisely, without compromise, and with a particular stress on accepting the truth of that denomination (and how 'unpopular' doctrines come as part and parcel of accepting that truth), then disseminating that message with all the means we've got. Moreover, regarding evangelisation, I believe we could probably use the much-vaunted Big Data to work out where our missionary efforts will bear the most fruit. And then there's the family - parents should look to educate themselves about their denomination, and then educate their children about it (although the key there is how to make it stick).

[Ryfylke]

I've been thinking: the reason why Christianity (not just Christianity itself, but also religiosity) is declining among younger people in America, I think, is because it's losing its relevance to our lives. Why would I spend time worrying about sins that no one else thinks about? All over tv and our culture, people do things that are strictly forbidden by the bible. Like pre-marital sex, for example. It's actually expected, at this point, and it seems really weird if you don't do anything with the other person.

Basically, as people disregard more and more traditional ideas of morality, and come to realize that nothing bad is happening to them, then the basic line of thinking is: what's the problem?

Also, as cultural expectations drift away from christian ideals, Christianity will seem more and more remote. This is exemplified by acceptance of LGBT people by the younger generations. We're scratching our heads as to why it's so wrong for two people to be in a loving, monogamous relationship, regardless of gender, but most churches are screaming "No!". It seems pointless, and annoying. So why continue believing in something we disagree with? That's not to say that the belief in god is declining, just the religion itself.

So anyway, my question to you guys is this: how can Christianity stay relevant, or is it doomed to a steady decline?

There are some things we'll have to get used to, first of which is that the Establishment - political, cultural, and media (especially the last two) - are not on our side, and don't really understand our religion. This makes it difficult from the off. 'Compromising' on doctrine to suit society, as well as being theologically impossible for most denominations, doesn't work - the denominations that do are actually declining at an even faster rate than the others - but rather gets those denominations token appreciation from a secular society that then continues about its daily lives, no more interested in practising Christianity, but perhaps slightly less inclined to believe all Christianity is a Bad Thing. Like Kongar-ol Ondar on Letterman - everyone watching applauded him and appreciated what he was doing, but I'd wager that very few actually bought that album, and fewer still went to any concerts or joined a fan club.

As I pointed out in this post to Constantinopolis, the decline in attendance in moderate to liberal Mainline Protestant denominations is almost exclusively due to demographics - the components of society that made up these denominations were the first to secularize and those who stayed have a consistently and substantially lower birthrate than those in Evangelical denominations and the Orthodox and Catholic Churches.

It's perfectly accurate to point out that these denominations are losing members faster than others, but be careful about implying that that trend is because of liberalization. It's a common truism, but it just isn't correct.

The key is understanding the zeitgeist that's prevailed these last fifty years - it's all about individualism and postmodernism. Much like the decline of organised Christianity, mass membership political parties have gone downhill too, because people have become less tribal and more willing to form their own opinions and consider themselves their own supreme authority on politics and religion/morals, rather than political or religious leaders. It's not a trend against theism per se, but against organised theism with a claim to absolute truth. People are forming their own moral codes that just so happen to agree with them on everything and don't demand much by way of ritual - some still have a veneer of 'Christianity' over that, but it's edging more and more towards 'spiritual but not religious', or simply 'not religious'. Atheism (that is, the empiricist New Atheism) is gaining popularity much like Calvinism did in the 16th century, when Catholicism lost its teaching authority and Protestantism was a broad and loose movement - it's simply explained, it's logically consistent, and it appeals to intellectuals. Unfortunately for Christianity, secularisation in education especially has meant that catechesis has nosedived - people now know far less about their Christian denomination and its beliefs than their parents or grandparents did, since they're not nearly taught it as much, and as a result it's more difficult than ever for us to explain Christianity and why it makes sense. That's compounded by the fact that we have a media and a cultural elite that doesn't understand Christianity either, and isn't particularly friendly towards it.

Your point about individualism is well-founded, I think. There's certainly a precedent for it: The exodus that caused the demographic crisis in the Mainline was a product of the individualism and disillusionment among the youth of the middle and upper classes in the 1960s, who left their parents' churches en masse and never came back.

So really, what we're seeing is simply the broadening of that same phenomenon. While the counterculture movement was largely made up of a very WASPy demographic (and thus hit the Mainline far harder than other branches of Christianity), the ideas behind that movement, including distrust of large institutions and a focus on the self, have now thoroughly filtered throughout all facets of society and are beginning to hurt denominations that were mostly unscathed when these ideas first came to prominence.

So the point is that there are elements of today's culture which puts us well and truly on the back foot. Society is postmodern, and thus highly sceptical towards claims of absolute truth. As widespread, coherent philosophies go, we're up against one that is more easily explained and more obviously logically consistent than ours, and is more at ease with this zeitgeist (atheists are still free to make up their own moral code, even if their cosmology's 'off-the-peg'), at a time when we have no real advantage in terms of education and the main outlets for information and argument aren't on our side. What we have to focus on instead is damage limitation - stabilising the numbers and avoiding persecution - and wait for (or help bring about) a wider cultural change towards one that's friendlier to a full-on re-Christianisation. Working on how to state our faith concisely, without compromise, and with a particular stress on accepting the truth of that denomination (and how 'unpopular' doctrines come as part and parcel of accepting that truth), then disseminating that message with all the means we've got. Moreover, regarding evangelisation, I believe we could probably use the much-vaunted Big Data to work out where our missionary efforts will bear the most fruit. And then there's the family - parents should look to educate themselves about their denomination, and then educate their children about it (although the key there is how to make it stick).

I suspect that comment regarding atheist cosmology is a key point to all this. Beyond a secularization of education, we've seen a particularly virulent strain of anti-humanities sentiment crop up in recent decades among both policymakers and the public; the demonization of philosophy as "useless" and whatnot is a specific component to this. Because schools have stopped teaching philosophy, students aren't forced to confront the true philosophical implications of their worldview. Though most will give lip service to some sort of "subjective morality," I suspect that the vast majority of atheists, both in thought and action, do hold to an objective moral system; however, no one is confronted with the fact that it's extremely problematic to both hold that there is objective morality and absolutely zero source for that morality. Philosophically, the atheist system has slew of apparent problems at least as large as the Christian system, and the former system has no catechism to explain those at all.

We've already seen the effect of this point within university philosophy departments, at least in North America. What was a thoroughly secular, often outright atheist field of study by the midcentury when Sartre and Camus were outlining the modern atheist philosophical system has increasingly become a home for religious (if perhaps somewhat unorthodox) professors - the long-overdue introduction of Kierkegaard as a serious point in the existentialist curriculum illustrates this well.

So rather than count on a shift back toward communitarian thought, perhaps the best course of action would be a re-emphasis on truth outside the realm of the scientific method found through philosophy, where even the most individualistic students would be forced to analyze the consequences of their philosophical systems and address the flaws they find, rather than simply ignoring the existence of those flaws, as is the case now.

[The Archregimancy]

It's so awful... the Church of the East will survive though, in the south of Iraq and overseas. We have one of their churches in my city, actually. But the Yazidi's.... I have an absolute fascination with them. They are not going to survive this war; another hundred years and they'll be gone.

The closest Christian nation to Northern Iraq is Armenia. See map below.

This admittedly accurate observation isn't really relevant to Albicia's point since A) the Oriental Orthodox Armenian church is wholly unrelated to the Nestorian Church of the East - indeed, the Christology of the two groups has been fundamentally oppositional since the 5th century - and B) Yazidis aren't Christian. So Armenia isn't really a wholly germane point of comparison for the two groups mentioned in the post you're replying to.

Yes, there's a Christian country not too far away from northern Iraq. But then there's an Eastern Orthodox country right next door to Turkey; that doesn't mean the position of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople is particularly secure.

These other groups might survive in an independent Kurdistan nation.

Given that it was Kurdish militias who were primarily responsible for annihilating most of the Christian communities of Tur Abdin a century ago, and Turkish Kurdish militias have continued to resist and oppress Christian presence in the region during the long separatist war against Turkey (one of the few things the Kurds and Ankara seem to agree on), the Christian communities of Kurdish Iraq - or what's left of them - could be forgiven for not viewing this prospect with total equanimity.

They could create a Christian nation for Arab all Arab people in Northern Iraq but I do not think it will happen.

We sort of semi-promised the Nestorian Assyrians precisely that a century ago.

While precisely the same piece of land was being promised to the French, the British, the Kurds, and Feisal bin Hussein al-Hashimi.

And hasn't that worked out well?

[The Archregimancy]

Yazidis have syncretic elements from just about everyone who ever outlined a religious belief system somewhere in the Middle East.

The point I was trying to make is that it doesn't seem very Christian like to ignore the plight of another grouo on the basis of religious differejces, especially since Christianity emphasizes love and charity and all that, not to mention liberation theology.

As an organized religion, Christianity had the strength of being a potent member of civil society to affect change for the better.

Thus, the plight of the oppressed in the Middle East should be the discussion and duty of the Christians in this thread.

I think you perhaps misunderstand me.

By necessity, as a moderation point, discussion in this thread should focus on Christianity.

So, for example, comparisons of Yazidi beliefs with Christian beliefs are germane. A discussion of Yazidism without a primary reference to Christianity wouldn't be.

Similarly, discussion of the oppression of religious minorities in northern Iraq should primarily focus on Christian groups in this thread. This doesn't mean discussion can't also touch upon the plight of Yazidis, Mandaeans (who are even more in danger than the Yazidis - and even more fascinating to me as a religious group), or even the Shia Muslims of the Nineveh region. But the primary focus of the discussion in this thread necessarily has to focus on Christianity.

I would, however, enthusiastically support elaboration of these themes as they pertain to non-Christian religious minorities in northern Iraq in the ISIS megathread.

[Constantinopolis]

The key is understanding the zeitgeist that's prevailed these last fifty years - it's all about individualism and postmodernism. Much like the decline of organised Christianity, mass membership political parties have gone downhill too, because people have become less tribal and more willing to form their own opinions and consider themselves their own supreme authority on politics and religion/morals, rather than political or religious leaders.

Your point about individualism is well-founded, I think. There's certainly a precedent for it: The exodus that caused the demographic crisis in the Mainline was a product of the individualism and disillusionment among the youth of the middle and upper classes in the 1960s, who left their parents' churches en masse and never came back.

So really, what we're seeing is simply the broadening of that same phenomenon. While the counterculture movement was largely made up of a very WASPy demographic (and thus hit the Mainline far harder than other branches of Christianity), the ideas behind that movement, including distrust of large institutions and a focus on the self, have now thoroughly filtered throughout all facets of society and are beginning to hurt denominations that were mostly unscathed when these ideas first came to prominence.

Yes, I completely agree. And the point about how mass membership political parties have declined alongside religion is especially important to me. As a communist, I am acutely aware of the fact that the main victims of this decline of mass politics have been the socialist movement (broadly defined, including everyone from Old Labour reformists to revolutionary communists) and the trade unions. I believe that there are important philosophical and ideological reasons why religion and socialism should be allies, but there is also a strategic reason: we face the same threats from the same enemy. The same zeitgeist that produced modern secularism and New Atheism in the realm of faith has also produced modern libertarianism in politics. The same zeitgeist that has eroded sacramental discipline in the Church has also eroded the practice of democratic centralism in communist organizations (trust me, I'm a member of both, I can see it, the same attitude is at work: "why do I have to follow all these rules if I only like some of them?"). Churches are spending more time discussing worldly concerns than doctrine or theology, and socialist organizations are spending more time discussing current events than basic political principles or aspects of their worldview. Catechesis has nosedived, and so has ideological discussion.

Our common enemy is a powerful cultural force. We need a united response.

So rather than count on a shift back toward communitarian thought, perhaps the best course of action would be a re-emphasis on truth outside the realm of the scientific method found through philosophy, where even the most individualistic students would be forced to analyze the consequences of their philosophical systems and address the flaws they find, rather than simply ignoring the existence of those flaws, as is the case now.

A shift back toward communitarian thought is essential if we are to have a revival. Christianity is fundamentally communitarian (and so is socialism, to continue the point above). Christianity is a mass movement. We need a culture favourable to mass movements if we are to reverse our decline. Individualistic students finding flaws in their secular worldview and thereby becoming more drawn to religion will simply result in every one of those students devising his own religious philosophical system, or at most it will result in the formation of small groups. It would not help Christianity, it would only swell the ranks of the "spiritual but not religious" crowd, and it might revive Deism.

[Czechanada]

The point I was trying to make is that it doesn't seem very Christian like to ignore the plight of another grouo on the basis of religious differejces, especially since Christianity emphasizes love and charity and all that, not to mention liberation theology.

As an organized religion, Christianity had the strength of being a potent member of civil society to affect change for the better.

Thus, the plight of the oppressed in the Middle East should be the discussion and duty of the Christians in this thread.

I think you perhaps misunderstand me.

By necessity, as a moderation point, discussion in this thread should focus on Christianity.

So, for example, comparisons of Yazidi beliefs with Christian beliefs are germane. A discussion of Yazidism without a primary reference to Christianity wouldn't be.

Similarly, discussion of the oppression of religious minorities in northern Iraq should primarily focus on Christian groups in this thread. This doesn't mean discussion can't also touch upon the plight of Yazidis, Mandaeans (who are even more in danger than the Yazidis - and even more fascinating to me as a religious group), or even the Shia Muslims of the Nineveh region. But the primary focus of the discussion in this thread necessarily has to focus on Christianity.

I would, however, enthusiastically support elaboration of these themes as they pertain to non-Christian religious minorities in northern Iraq in the ISIS megathread.

I think my point was misunderstood as well, but I'll defer to your authority.

My apologies.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

not what I was saying at all

Then why would you come to a christian discussion, not being a christian yourself (I assume), and tell us that our morals don't matter?

Dude Othelos has been contributing here far longer than you have.

[The Sanguinian Islands]

Then why would you come to a christian discussion, not being a christian yourself (I assume), and tell us that our morals don't matter?

Dude Othelos has been contributing here far longer than you have.

i know i just realized im trying to find a way to make myself look smart again

[Puerto Tyranus]

The key is understanding the zeitgeist that's prevailed these last fifty years - it's all about individualism and postmodernism. Much like the decline of organised Christianity, mass membership political parties have gone downhill too, because people have become less tribal and more willing to form their own opinions and consider themselves their own supreme authority on politics and religion/morals, rather than political or religious leaders.

Your point about individualism is well-founded, I think. There's certainly a precedent for it: The exodus that caused the demographic crisis in the Mainline was a product of the individualism and disillusionment among the youth of the middle and upper classes in the 1960s, who left their parents' churches en masse and never came back.

So really, what we're seeing is simply the broadening of that same phenomenon. While the counterculture movement was largely made up of a very WASPy demographic (and thus hit the Mainline far harder than other branches of Christianity), the ideas behind that movement, including distrust of large institutions and a focus on the self, have now thoroughly filtered throughout all facets of society and are beginning to hurt denominations that were mostly unscathed when these ideas first came to prominence.

Yes, I completely agree. And the point about how mass membership political parties have declined alongside religion is especially important to me. As a communist, I am acutely aware of the fact that the main victims of this decline of mass politics have been the socialist movement (broadly defined, including everyone from Old Labour reformists to revolutionary communists) and the trade unions. I believe that there are important philosophical and ideological reasons why religion and socialism should be allies, but there is also a strategic reason: we face the same threats from the same enemy. The same zeitgeist that produced modern secularism and New Atheism in the realm of faith has also produced modern libertarianism in politics. The same zeitgeist that has eroded sacramental discipline in the Church has also eroded the practice of democratic centralism in communist organizations (trust me, I'm a member of both, I can see it, the same attitude is at work: "why do I have to follow all these rules if I only like some of them?"). Churches are spending more time discussing worldly concerns than doctrine or theology, and socialist organizations are spending more time discussing current events than basic political principles or aspects of their worldview. Catechesis has nosedived, and so has ideological discussion.

Our common enemy is a powerful cultural force. We need a united response.

So rather than count on a shift back toward communitarian thought, perhaps the best course of action would be a re-emphasis on truth outside the realm of the scientific method found through philosophy, where even the most individualistic students would be forced to analyze the consequences of their philosophical systems and address the flaws they find, rather than simply ignoring the existence of those flaws, as is the case now.

A shift back toward communitarian thought is essential if we are to have a revival. Christianity is fundamentally communitarian (and so is socialism, to continue the point above). Christianity is a mass movement. We need a culture favourable to mass movements if we are to reverse our decline. Individualistic students finding flaws in their secular worldview and thereby becoming more drawn to religion will simply result in every one of those students devising his own religious philosophical system, or at most it will result in the formation of small groups. It would not help Christianity, it would only swell the ranks of the "spiritual but not religious" crowd, and it might revive Deism.

You know, that actually has interested me for some time. As a Catholic, I have been taught to help the poor as best I can, and Pope Francis has been hitting on that point since he was elected, so when and why did Catholicism become so anti-socialist? I know JP II wasn't very fond of the Stalinists, but Lenin did his thing in, what, late 1800's, early 1900's? So it couldn't have been just JP II (who I really like, btw, fun guy).

But, moving away from that tangent, I just wanna say that seeing big posts from you guys makes be all warm and fuzzy inside, because it means that I'm about to learn something, so thanks for that.

[Constantinopolis]

You know, that actually has interested me for some time. As a Catholic, I have been taught to help the poor as best I can, and Pope Francis has been hitting on that point since he was elected, so when and why did Catholicism become so anti-socialist? I know JP II wasn't very fond of the Stalinists, but Lenin did his thing in, what, late 1800's, early 1900's? So it couldn't have been just JP II (who I really like, btw, fun guy).

It goes all the way back to the late 1700s, unfortunately. At the time, socialism did not exist yet, and the Catholic Church was strongly allied with the French monarchy and other powerful European royal houses. Then the French Revolution came, which was a watershed in human history. It created the divide between left-wing and right-wing politics, and gave birth to a worldview from which all modern left and radical ideologies ultimately arose. Liberalism, libertarianism, socialism, communism, anarchism - all trace their lineage back to the anti-monarchist revolutionaries of the late 1700s, both in France and (earlier) in America and (later) across Europe.

And the Catholic Church, for worldly political reasons, was allied with the old monarchies against these revolutionaries. That was when the feud between the Catholic Church and the left began. At the time, "the left" meant free-market liberalism and republicanism, but socialism soon began to develop as a distinct ideology and broke away from liberalism in the 1830s-1840s (yes, free-marketeers and socialists share a common ancestor; in the beginning they were simply the anti-feudal and anti-monarchist side of politics, and only later did they realize their great differences on the question of what to replace feudalism with). And so, in spite of the obvious similarities between socialism and Christian doctrine, socialism inherited the anti-clericalism and militant secularism of its ideological "parents". Meanwhile, the Catholic Church was busy mounting a desperate last defense of the crumbling old order against wave after wave of revolutions in the 19th century (France, for example, had revolutions in 1789, 1830, 1832, 1848, and 1871), and was in no mood to make distinctions between the bewildering array of new ideologies popping up all over the place, all of which seemed to be anti-clerical.

When Italian liberal-nationalist revolutionaries conquered the Papal States themselves in the 1860s, and even took Rome and made it the capital of their new secular Italian nation-state (after 1100 years of the city being a theocracy ruled by the Pope), the Church basically reacted as if the end times had come and the atheists were battering down the gates (which, to be fair, they literally were). The Pope barricaded himself in the citadel of the Vatican, and, for the next 60 years, Popes refused to come out of there, feeling literally under seige. St. Peter's square was blocked off, not open like it is today. During this time, the Popes denounced anything and everything to do with the modern world, from the industrial revolution to capitalism to liberalism to socialism. In spite of the population at large being far more religious than it is today, anti-religious sentiment was also far stronger than it is today, and far more militant. It was, in other words, a more polarized world when it came to organized religion.

Socialism existed this whole time as a political movement, but it was a minor one and most world leaders paid no attention to it. It was only in the 1870s and 1880s that the socialist movement became significant enough to have a real impact on world affairs, and people started to take notice. Socialist opinions on religion varied, ranging from outspoken Christian socialists to militant atheists. The majority were in the middle. Meanwhile, the Catholic Church was opposed to socialism as part of its blanket opposition to all modern ideologies.

Then, two important developments occurred: First, in the late 19th century, free-market ideology became mainstream, it became part of the establishment and stopped being associated with revolutionary activity. No longer fighting against a common enemy (because feudalism was dead), free-marketeers and socialists became the bitter enemies they are today, in line with their respective ideological principles (which are, of course, strongly opposed to each other). Second, in the early 20th century, a militant atheist branch of the socialist movement, led by Lenin, came to power in Russia and achieved enormous prestige and influence by doing so (because they created the world's first socialist state - this was the moment socialists had been dreaming about for almost a hundred years).

So, basically, free-market ideology dropped its anti-religious aspects in order to become a respectable player in mainstream politics, and a few decades later the atheist side of the socialist movement scored a great historic victory over capitalism and thereby converted great numbers of socialists to its views. After that, religious people and socialists often found themselves on opposite sides of politics, up to the present day.

That's essentially how we got to the political-religious alignment we have today. It was largely due to random chance, accidental events, and "I oppose them because they oppose me." If it had been a matter of principles - at it should be - then, by all rights, Christians and socialists should be close allies. But, unfortunately, it was not a matter of principles.

But, moving away from that tangent, I just wanna say that seeing big posts from you guys makes be all warm and fuzzy inside, because it means that I'm about to learn something, so thanks for that.

Thank you for the kind words! It's comments like this that keep me writing.

[Mostrov]

I have been doing some thinking about what exactly should be done about the CoE as of recent, I do women being ordination quite distressing in that it doesn't make much allowance for traditionalists. I'm not about to become schismatic, as I find that utterly abhorrent; whilst at the same time I think this is a poor decision as it could quite easily discredit what apostolic succession we have remaining (something which the church spent a long time trying to build up I might add).

[The Orson Empire]

I've been thinking: the reason why Christianity (not just Christianity itself, but also religiosity) is declining among younger people in America, I think, is because it's losing its relevance to our lives. Why would I spend time worrying about sins that no one else thinks about? All over tv and our culture, people do things that are strictly forbidden by the bible. Like pre-marital sex, for example. It's actually expected, at this point, and it seems really weird if you don't do anything with the other person.

Basically, as people disregard more and more traditional ideas of morality, and come to realize that nothing bad is happening to them, then the basic line of thinking is: what's the problem?

Which is terrible. People shouldn't be expected to have premarital sex, they should be sternly expected not to. And the media should be restricted not to allow immoral messages that affect the minds of the populace.

People with your opinion are the reason why this is happening.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Which is terrible. People shouldn't be expected to have premarital sex, they should be sternly expected not to. And the media should be restricted not to allow immoral messages that affect the minds of the populace.

People with your opinion are the reason why this is happening.

That's a catch 22

[Constantinopolis]

Which is terrible. People shouldn't be expected to have premarital sex, they should be sternly expected not to. And the media should be restricted not to allow immoral messages that affect the minds of the populace.

People with your opinion are the reason why this is happening.

Um, the reason what is happening?

I have been doing some thinking about what exactly should be done about the CoE as of recent, I do women being ordination quite distressing in that it doesn't make much allowance for traditionalists. I'm not about to become schismatic, as I find that utterly abhorrent; whilst at the same time I think this is a poor decision as it could quite easily discredit what apostolic succession we have remaining (something which the church spent a long time trying to build up I might add).

You know, I hadn't considered what this will do to apostolic succession. It's an even bigger mess than I realized...

[Lleu llaw Gyffes]

People with your opinion are the reason why this is happening.

Um, the reason what is happening?

I have been doing some thinking about what exactly should be done about the CoE as of recent, I do women being ordination quite distressing in that it doesn't make much allowance for traditionalists. I'm not about to become schismatic, as I find that utterly abhorrent; whilst at the same time I think this is a poor decision as it could quite easily discredit what apostolic succession we have remaining (something which the church spent a long time trying to build up I might add).

Indeed. In Wales, the concession to Traditionalists was we got a Wandering Bishop. The Glory was that the Anti-women-Priest Bishop is jolly and bouncy and the Pro-women-Priest Archbishop is tall, thin and Jesuitical. If it had been up to me, I would have made the jolly Bishop Pro-women-Priest and the jesuitical Bishop would have been Anti.

but when he retired, they refused to elect a new Bishop for us. Bastards!

Merry Assumption-tide! In Cardiff, we have Torch-lit Procession, Fireworks and Barbecue. How do you celebrate the Feast?
You know, I hadn't considered what this will do to apostolic succession. It's an even bigger mess than I realized...

[Angleter]

There are some things we'll have to get used to, first of which is that the Establishment - political, cultural, and media (especially the last two) - are not on our side, and don't really understand our religion. This makes it difficult from the off. 'Compromising' on doctrine to suit society, as well as being theologically impossible for most denominations, doesn't work - the denominations that do are actually declining at an even faster rate than the others - but rather gets those denominations token appreciation from a secular society that then continues about its daily lives, no more interested in practising Christianity, but perhaps slightly less inclined to believe all Christianity is a Bad Thing. Like Kongar-ol Ondar on Letterman - everyone watching applauded him and appreciated what he was doing, but I'd wager that very few actually bought that album, and fewer still went to any concerts or joined a fan club.

As I pointed out in this post to Constantinopolis, the decline in attendance in moderate to liberal Mainline Protestant denominations is almost exclusively due to demographics - the components of society that made up these denominations were the first to secularize and those who stayed have a consistently and substantially lower birthrate than those in Evangelical denominations and the Orthodox and Catholic Churches.

It's perfectly accurate to point out that these denominations are losing members faster than others, but be careful about implying that that trend is because of liberalization. It's a common truism, but it just isn't correct.

It does show, however, that liberalisation isn't - as its proponents generally claim it would - improving the situation.

What would also be interesting is looking at the decline of 'mainline' denominations in Europe - while the Mainline churches in America are (were) predominantly middle-class, their European counterparts, being traditionally completely dominant in their countries, had large working-class bases (although in Britain certainly, Catholicism and Evangelicalism were largely working-class phenomenons). And the curious case of the '90s, both for (American) Mainline and (English and Welsh) Catholicism (the Catholic uptick after what seems to be 2004 is almost certainly due to a massive influx of predominantly Polish immigrants to England in particular; I have no idea what went on in what seems to be 2001).

So the point is that there are elements of today's culture which puts us well and truly on the back foot. Society is postmodern, and thus highly sceptical towards claims of absolute truth. As widespread, coherent philosophies go, we're up against one that is more easily explained and more obviously logically consistent than ours, and is more at ease with this zeitgeist (atheists are still free to make up their own moral code, even if their cosmology's 'off-the-peg'), at a time when we have no real advantage in terms of education and the main outlets for information and argument aren't on our side. What we have to focus on instead is damage limitation - stabilising the numbers and avoiding persecution - and wait for (or help bring about) a wider cultural change towards one that's friendlier to a full-on re-Christianisation. Working on how to state our faith concisely, without compromise, and with a particular stress on accepting the truth of that denomination (and how 'unpopular' doctrines come as part and parcel of accepting that truth), then disseminating that message with all the means we've got. Moreover, regarding evangelisation, I believe we could probably use the much-vaunted Big Data to work out where our missionary efforts will bear the most fruit. And then there's the family - parents should look to educate themselves about their denomination, and then educate their children about it (although the key there is how to make it stick).

I suspect that comment regarding atheist cosmology is a key point to all this. Beyond a secularization of education, we've seen a particularly virulent strain of anti-humanities sentiment crop up in recent decades among both policymakers and the public; the demonization of philosophy as "useless" and whatnot is a specific component to this. Because schools have stopped teaching philosophy, students aren't forced to confront the true philosophical implications of their worldview. Though most will give lip service to some sort of "subjective morality," I suspect that the vast majority of atheists, both in thought and action, do hold to an objective moral system; however, no one is confronted with the fact that it's extremely problematic to both hold that there is objective morality and absolutely zero source for that morality. Philosophically, the atheist system has slew of apparent problems at least as large as the Christian system, and the former system has no catechism to explain those at all.

We've already seen the effect of this point within university philosophy departments, at least in North America. What was a thoroughly secular, often outright atheist field of study by the midcentury when Sartre and Camus were outlining the modern atheist philosophical system has increasingly become a home for religious (if perhaps somewhat unorthodox) professors - the long-overdue introduction of Kierkegaard as a serious point in the existentialist curriculum illustrates this well.

So rather than count on a shift back toward communitarian thought, perhaps the best course of action would be a re-emphasis on truth outside the realm of the scientific method found through philosophy, where even the most individualistic students would be forced to analyze the consequences of their philosophical systems and address the flaws they find, rather than simply ignoring the existence of those flaws, as is the case now.

Definitely. Though I can't see individualism disappearing any time soon, a renewed focus on the humanities, and specifically on the philosophy of morality, would perhaps help revive belief in objective morality, be it religious or otherwise, and strike a blow to postmodernism. After all, though the great over-arching utopian modernist visions and their accompanying mass movements are largely gone, and though people generally now have their own independent political opinions, they don't consider their political beliefs subjective.

[Pope Joan]

Yes, I completely agree. And the point about how mass membership political parties have declined alongside religion is especially important to me. As a communist, I am acutely aware of the fact that the main victims of this decline of mass politics have been the socialist movement (broadly defined, including everyone from Old Labour reformists to revolutionary communists) and the trade unions. I believe that there are important philosophical and ideological reasons why religion and socialism should be allies, but there is also a strategic reason: we face the same threats from the same enemy. The same zeitgeist that produced modern secularism and New Atheism in the realm of faith has also produced modern libertarianism in politics. The same zeitgeist that has eroded sacramental discipline in the Church has also eroded the practice of democratic centralism in communist organizations (trust me, I'm a member of both, I can see it, the same attitude is at work: "why do I have to follow all these rules if I only like some of them?"). Churches are spending more time discussing worldly concerns than doctrine or theology, and socialist organizations are spending more time discussing current events than basic political principles or aspects of their worldview. Catechesis has nosedived, and so has ideological discussion.

Our common enemy is a powerful cultural force. We need a united response.


A shift back toward communitarian thought is essential if we are to have a revival. Christianity is fundamentally communitarian (and so is socialism, to continue the point above). Christianity is a mass movement. We need a culture favourable to mass movements if we are to reverse our decline. Individualistic students finding flaws in their secular worldview and thereby becoming more drawn to religion will simply result in every one of those students devising his own religious philosophical system, or at most it will result in the formation of small groups. It would not help Christianity, it would only swell the ranks of the "spiritual but not religious" crowd, and it might revive Deism.

You know, that actually has interested me for some time. As a Catholic, I have been taught to help the poor as best I can, and Pope Francis has been hitting on that point since he was elected, so when and why did Catholicism become so anti-socialist? I know JP II wasn't very fond of the Stalinists, but Lenin did his thing in, what, late 1800's, early 1900's? So it couldn't have been just JP II (who I really like, btw, fun guy).

But, moving away from that tangent, I just wanna say that seeing big posts from you guys makes be all warm and fuzzy inside, because it means that I'm about to learn something, so thanks for that.

On the other hand, many still admire Dorothy Day, and the legacy of the Catholic Worker movement is still alive in North America.

http://www.catholicworker.org/

[The Archregimancy]

They have e-mail on Mount Athos....

I sent off my booking forms to reserve spots in the different monasteries I hope to stay at in September, and Philotheou Monastery - to my stunned amazement - actually e-mailed me back to confirm.

Dr [redacted]

Your request for hospitality at our Monastery of St. Philotheou for 1 person(s), for the night of 26-09-2014, has been accepted.

We ask that you arrive before 15:00, so that the guestmaster can arrange for you accordingly. In case of cancellation please notify us.

For the non-Orthodox Christian visitors we would like to inform you that in accordance with the church canons, non-Orthodox Christian are not allowed beyond the exonarthex of the Church during times of services, as well as the time of the meal is also considered a time of prayer, you will be advised by the guestmaster when your meal will be served (either before or after the meal of the fathers).

We thank you for your understanding.

The Secretary

Fr. Markos

I knew that many of the monasteries have embraced modern technology far more than might be expected, but I never expected an e-mailed reply - even if it is clearly a form letter.

Not really a discussion point, that; but I thought the Orthodox contributors to the thread might be interested.

[Cyrisnia]

They have e-mail on Mount Athos....

I sent off my booking forms to reserve spots in the different monasteries I hope to stay at in September, and Philotheou Monastery - to my stunned amazement - actually e-mailed me back to confirm.

Dr [redacted]

Your request for hospitality at our Monastery of St. Philotheou for 1 person(s), for the night of 26-09-2014, has been accepted.

We ask that you arrive before 15:00, so that the guestmaster can arrange for you accordingly. In case of cancellation please notify us.

For the non-Orthodox Christian visitors we would like to inform you that in accordance with the church canons, non-Orthodox Christian are not allowed beyond the exonarthex of the Church during times of services, as well as the time of the meal is also considered a time of prayer, you will be advised by the guestmaster when your meal will be served (either before or after the meal of the fathers).

We thank you for your understanding.

The Secretary

Fr. Markos

I knew that many of the monasteries have embraced modern technology far more than might be expected, but I never expected an e-mailed reply - even if it is clearly a form letter.

Not really a discussion point, that; but I thought the Orthodox contributors to the thread might be interested.

What is Mount Athos?
Some Orthodox Monastery, I take it?

[Antirome]

They have e-mail on Mount Athos....

I sent off my booking forms to reserve spots in the different monasteries I hope to stay at in September, and Philotheou Monastery - to my stunned amazement - actually e-mailed me back to confirm.

I knew that many of the monasteries have embraced modern technology far more than might be expected, but I never expected an e-mailed reply - even if it is clearly a form letter.

Not really a discussion point, that; but I thought the Orthodox contributors to the thread might be interested.

What is Mount Athos?
Some Orthodox Monastery, I take it?

It's actually a cluster of monasteries, one of which is technically not supposed to be there thanks to a feud with the Patriarch, and they're all essentially self-governing. Apparently one of the most peaceful places on Earth, according to my Athenian teacher.

[Menassa]

What is Mount Athos?
Some Orthodox Monastery, I take it?

It's actually a cluster of monasteries, one of which is technically not supposed to be there thanks to a feud with the Patriarch, and they're all essentially self-governing. Apparently one of the most peaceful places on Earth, according to my Athenian teacher.

Dual-covenanter.... is that your way of saying Dual-covenant theologian?

[Benuty]

It's actually a cluster of monasteries, one of which is technically not supposed to be there thanks to a feud with the Patriarch, and they're all essentially self-governing. Apparently one of the most peaceful places on Earth, according to my Athenian teacher.

Dual-covenanter.... is that your way of saying Dual-covenant theologian?

Nonsense it is the two schools of technosocialism .