This was interesting; I'd long sensed a difference between the conservative/fundamentalist Christianity I grew up in and the Christianity of some of my teachers who were more influenced by the likes of Lewis and Tolkein. Fundamentalists seem to take "be in the world, but not of the world" in the most literal of senses (i.e. don't live in a commune in the desert, but only consume Christian books/music/movies/culture). I'm curious--was abortion the only issue that drove the split of Christianity into it's 'separate but equal' public? I'm far too young to have experienced this firsthand, and as I understand it homosexuality only really became a public issue in the 80s and 90s.
Not sure exactly what you mean by this. Regarding abortion, I'd say not. It was definitely important to what you might call the traditional Christian intellectual, but so were homosexuality (sometimes), the rise in what I might charmingly call 'free love' -- and most crucially, arguments about what marriage should be.Christianity into it's 'separate but equal' public?
The article talks about this--basically, the shift from mainstream US culture containing writing/music/art from people who are Christian to the development of Christian publishing houses, bands, movies, etc. I can see this; my parents' church harps on about divorce rates and has excommunicated at least one person for 'living in sin', which did somehow involve divorce... In addition, a lot of people find that being feminist and being pro-life, or being feminist and opposing divorce, are mutually exclusive and thus it would be easy for anyone wanting to hold the latter positions (pro-life, anti-divorce) to be forced out of the liberal cultural conversation. Once that happens, I suppose most people end up feeling more welcome amongst traditionalist/conservative groups, and that slight selective pressure compounds over the years into the weird social mess we have today. (I'm not sure what my point is here other than trying to understand how Christianity got to where it is.)Not sure exactly what you mean by this.
most crucially, arguments about what marriage should be
Sort of, yeah. And the parable of Richard John Neuhaus illustrates that intelligent Christians had to choose -- buy into liberal orthodoxy regarding abortion, etc, (even while disagreeing completely with subcamps, e.g., atheists) or lose their voice entirely. That combined with other important factors is probably the answer behind the decline referenced in the title.In addition, a lot of people find that being feminist and being pro-life, or being feminist and opposing divorce, are mutually exclusive and thus it would be easy for anyone wanting to hold the latter positions (pro-life, anti-divorce) to be forced out of the liberal cultural conversation. Once that happens, I suppose most people end up feeling more welcome amongst traditionalist/conservative groups, and that slight selective pressure compounds over the years into the weird social mess we have today.
Aristocrats don't need their peasants breeding like rabbits and thinking toil is good for them because original sin; America isn't an agrarian economy anymore. Capitalists don't need preachers telling people wage slavery is good for them because original sin, there isn't a viable alternative so the proles' misery doesn't matter and economists do a better job keeping the professional class in line. There are no Christian intellectuals because there is no need for Christian intellectuals, there are more effective means of social control now. Fear not. the fist is still made of iron, it just has a different paint job.
Which of these things was still true in 1945?Aristocrats don't need their peasants breeding like rabbits and thinking toil is good for them because original sin; America isn't an agrarian economy anymore. Capitalists don't need preachers telling people wage slavery is good for them because original sin, there isn't a viable alternative so the proles' misery doesn't matter and economists do a better job keeping the professional class in line.
Wrong question. Which of these things were still true in 1941? Ohio, 1937: 1939: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Coughlin#Cancellation_of_radio_show https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post%E2%80%93World_War_II_economic_expansionAristocrats don't need their peasants breeding like rabbits and thinking toil is good for them because original sin
Capitalists don't need preachers telling people wage slavery is good for them because original sin
there isn't a viable alternative so the proles' misery doesn't matter
and economists do a better job keeping the professional class in line.
Gah! This is long and boring and fascinating and this site isn't mobile friendly so the text is very tiny and I don't understand half the sentences but they all still seem to make sense. Curse you flagamuffin. Thank you flagamuffin.
This is probably the only salient point I can add to this discussion without becoming immature. A Christian Case Against the Literal Reading of Scripture Minor edit* Also I'd love to see some pro-choice Christians, and find out what scripture they cite to defend their position.