Why was it good for Churches to flee the public sphere?

lifepsyop said:

The thing I see as one of the biggest problems of modern western Christianity is that they see late-20th century Christianity as the most advanced or most highly evolved or most purified form of Christianity.

Christian leaders look back a century at the time of official state Churches in the U.S. as highly problematic. They look back at the time (say before the mid-20th century), when the church had great influence over the public sphere, and see it as problematic.

They view postwar (post-1950's) Christianity as it's most pure form, where the faith has been removed from every sector and institution, except for the individual believer.

The church and Christian morality has retreated to a completely private affair, of individual believers, and this is viewed as a good thing.

The fruits of this transformation we can plainly see. Just one example, look at the most foundational bedrock of society and Christian living, the relationship between men and women. This has been torn completely to shreds and dragged threw a sewer.

But present day Christian leaders will just be like "Well that's just the fallen world! We just need to share the Gospel with more people!", and they completely dodge the fact that this is largely a result of their own institution fleeing from the public sphere. That men and women were, just a few generations ago, held together by a traditional Christian system, because of the Church's influence in the public sphere.


How could any Christian leader view this transformation of the church from public to private as a good thing?

But most of these leaders scoff at the idea of turning back, that this would taint the faith with politics and make it impure.


In the same way.... how easily could things like Pornography be completely banned from our states, if Church leaders organized their congregants into voting blocs?
But again, that would be "bringing politics into Church" and we can't have that. Instead each individual congregant must vote their individual conscience. They are not allowed to be politically led by a spiritual leader... which is pretty silly when you think about it.



But there are reasons this transformation took place, and it has a lot to do with something called "The Postwar Consensus", briefly, that after World War 2, it was decided that strong beliefs were a dangerous thing that led to authoritarian impulses. It was decided that flooding a society with pornography was less evil or dangerous than having a society that held too much rigid morality against pornography. (remember, the Nazis tried to ban pornography, and you don't want to be like them)... That is the Postwar Consensus in a nutshell. Christian morality is dangerous if it is exerted anywhere except in a private believer's own conscience. We can't have it as any kind of authority over our public communities.


So there it is. This is a huge glaring problem with present-day Christianity, that a lot of people are starting to question because the fruit of such a system has become so rotten, and we see the reactions beginning to play out.

Click to expand...

lifepsyop said:

The thing I see as one of the biggest problems of modern western Christianity is that they see late-20th century Christianity as the most advanced or most highly evolved or most purified form of Christianity.

Christian leaders look back a century at the time of official state Churches in the U.S. as highly problematic. They look back at the time (say before the mid-20th century), when the church had great influence over the public sphere, and see it as problematic.

They view postwar (post-1950's) Christianity as it's most pure form, where the faith has been removed from every sector and institution, except for the individual believer.

The church and Christian morality has retreated to a completely private affair, of individual believers, and this is viewed as a good thing.

The fruits of this transformation we can plainly see. Just one example, look at the most foundational bedrock of society and Christian living, the relationship between men and women. This has been torn completely to shreds and dragged threw a sewer.

But present day Christian leaders will just be like "Well that's just the fallen world! We just need to share the Gospel with more people!", and they completely dodge the fact that this is largely a result of their own institution fleeing from the public sphere. That men and women were, just a few generations ago, held together by a traditional Christian system, because of the Church's influence in the public sphere.


How could any Christian leader view this transformation of the church from public to private as a good thing?

But most of these leaders scoff at the idea of turning back, that this would taint the faith with politics and make it impure.


In the same way.... how easily could things like Pornography be completely banned from our states, if Church leaders organized their congregants into voting blocs?
But again, that would be "bringing politics into Church" and we can't have that. Instead each individual congregant must vote their individual conscience. They are not allowed to be politically led by a spiritual leader... which is pretty silly when you think about it.



But there are reasons this transformation took place, and it has a lot to do with something called "The Postwar Consensus", briefly, that after World War 2, it was decided that strong beliefs were a dangerous thing that led to authoritarian impulses. It was decided that flooding a society with pornography was less evil or dangerous than having a society that held too much rigid morality against pornography. (remember, the Nazis tried to ban pornography, and you don't want to be like them)... That is the Postwar Consensus in a nutshell. Christian morality is dangerous if it is exerted anywhere except in a private believer's own conscience. We can't have it as any kind of authority over our public communities.


So there it is. This is a huge glaring problem with present-day Christianity, that a lot of people are starting to question because the fruit of such a system has become so rotten, and we see the reactions beginning to play out.

Click to expand...

lifepsyop said:

well you said it: politics and religion are inherently intertwined.

not whether, but which religion.

so what religion controls our politics today? I'd say it's a form of Liberalism that venerates the atomized individual above all else, "liberating" them from every traditional structure including the categories of male and female. One religious abuse includes arresting parents who try and stop their child from pursuing transgender procedures. Just one example.

It's not whether or not a religion dominates your politics, but *which* religion.

a lot of people are starting to figure out that if we're inevitably stuck with a religion over us, it should probably be a Christian one.



the Church itself is in an awkward position because they presided over this total evacuation from the public sphere over the latter 20th century, themselves believing in the myth that public institutions could exist in this kind of areligious vacuum.

Click to expand...

lifepsyop said:

not necessarily saying past Christianity was more pure - but it is the central claim of modern Christianity that they are more pure now that they are completely separate from state power or public institutions. the idea of returning Christianity to a place of political power is (up until the last decade or so) was unanimously derided by liberals and conservatives alike as a great afront to the spirit of personal liberty.



Quite a lot to unpack there, but this is generally the liberal/progressive point of view. And I think modern Christianity would more or less agree with you - that people, especially white Christians, were basically evil until the true light shone around the 1960's or so.

but regarding your initial points - compare the state of our cities today with a century ago. Rapists and other repeat violent offenders are routinely released back into society making many American cities some of the most dangerous places in the world. People walking the streets are routinely assaulted and worse. It's hard to argue that we've made any kind of progress when it comes to the average person feeling safe from physical abuse.

Another point you raise is "career options for women"... there's a growing epidemic of women in their 30's and 40's now who devoted themselves to a career and are now in the depths of depression because they realize they've possibly missed out on the most important purpose they had, which was to raise a family.
Likewise there is a general annoyance among men and women alike that they are now both expected to work in order to make ends meet, leaving their children to be raised by schools and daycare. Women have not been "liberated", they are simply tethered to new masters in the labor/corporate world, and there are plenty of them that long for the days when they were expected to be primarily keepers of the home.

Click to expand...