() – Emblems of belief available for placement on USVA headstones and markers (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
One of the great ironies of recent history is that Russia, the quintessential atheistic society when it was the largest part of the Soviet Union, is returning to Eastern Orthodoxy. While much of its population retains its atheism, the government of Vladamir Putin strongly supports the Orthodox Church and has increasingly supported a traditionally Christian society. Like the African churches (outside of South Africa), the Russian Orthodox Church is theologically and morally conservative, much more so than mainline American churches.
Although the United States was originally more deist and agnostic than religious, after the Second Great Awakening in the late 1700s it, in effect, became a Protestant Christian nation. There was a general understanding held by the vast majority of Americans, including Roman Catholics and Jews, that a fairly conservative traditional morality was to be followed. This morality included opposition to abortion (abortion, over time, was made illegal in most states during the nineteenth century), opposition to premarital sex, adultery, and homosexual activity, and support of a traditional conception of male and female roles in the family. Going to church (or synagogue) was considered a commendable thing to do. Prayer and Bible lessons took place in both private–and public–schools. Although many people violated the common morality, even the violators, for the most part, believed they were committing morally wrong acts. Church attendance remained high. The last religious revival in the United States continued through 1965.
There were precursors to the destruction of the Protestant consensus before the 1960s, but it was after the assassination of President Kennedy on November 22, 1963, that social change rapidly occurred. The intellectual classes, already quite liberal, did not have the intellectual nor the cultural resources to halt the tide of radical activism. David Horowitz, who participated in much of the activism, was a red diaper baby, a crusading Communist, and he points out that despite the claims of those reacting against the late Senator McCarthy, the radicals behind the 1960s revolution were openly Communist. As such, they were atheists who also opposed the Protestant consensus that included a common morality. The advent of artificial contraception was used as an excuse to defend “free love,” a movement that began as early as the Kennedy years. The late 1960s saw the apex of the debate over the morality of abortion that led to the January 1973 “Roe v. Wade” Supreme Court ruling legalizing abortion. With marriage effectively separated for childbirth combined with easy divorce (which had been a staple of some states since the late nineteenth century), marriage was seen as a way for someone to become happy rather than as a sacrament and a permanent commitment. Once marriage became separated from the right to have sexual intercourse, it became more and more a civil arrangement–and it was a small step to support same-sex marriage. Given that climate, one wonders how long it will take before American society supports incestuous marriage or pedophilic marriage. Once the foundations of a social order are destroyed, the house quickly follows.
Many of the Christian Churches, especially the mainline Protestant denominations, have more or less yielded completely to the new social norms. The Evangelicals, tied up for years in gimmicks rather than in Biblical teaching, development of Christian character, and the beauty of traditional worship, are rapidly given ground on traditional moral positions regarding sexual ethics. American Roman Catholics remain deeply divided after radical priests and bishops fundamentally changed many churches during the late 1960s and 1970s. The Fundamentalists remain faithful to traditional theology and morals, but too often focus on minutia rather than on the cultural war that they have, in effect, already lost. Stating traditional Christian positions, already a crime in the UK and in much of Western Europe, is becoming socially unacceptable in many American circles. Eventually, stating traditional positions on sexual morality or defending the exclusive nature of Christian claims will become hate crimes in the United States if current trends continue.
The United States is no longer a Christian nation. To claim that is is denies the obvious transvaluation of values that has taken place during the last 50 years. Russia is the last major superpower that can claim, at least at the level of government policy, to be a Christian nation. If the common people of Russian embrace the Orthodox faith again, it will be Russia that will be a shining light to the world, with the United States a decadent shell of its former self.
Related articles
- Putin helps Russian church grows as political force (foxnews.com)
Aug 12, 2013 @ 21:07:34
Traditional Christianity is so interwoven with money and power that I tend to suspect most of its “revelatons”. E.g. I have no idea if this detailed article is accurate or not, but the mere fact of its existence is highly suggestive–“Will the Illuminati Attack Russia?”–http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/08/11/will-the-illuminati-attack-russia/
By contrast two writers who articulate a very clear and understandable version of Christianity that would benefit most anyone are Joel Goldsmith and Emmet Fox. It is a very practical Christianity that produces results which the more ritualistic versions don’t seem to do. The latter present dogmas, rules to follow and a certain amount of mystification designed it would seem to control the people. These versions must have been done in coordination with the power structure of the society which saw in Christianity a way to further their goals which were rarely what could be called Christian. At the very beginning we have Justinian (and his rather dangerous wife) presiding over a conclave of bishops who decide among other things to banish the idea of reincarnation. I don’t think either ought to be considered saints or even good Christians. They weren’t. But they were cunning and knew a good thing when they saw it.
But all this is a long way from the New Testament Jesus in my opinion. Even now there are atheists in high places who would do whatever it took to preserve Christianity for the sake of their power and wealth . . . . and some are in the Vatican or powerful Protestant Churches.
Aug 13, 2013 @ 14:14:08
Your objection is a common one, and there is enough truth to it to make it seem plausible. Power relationships are involved in any political activity, including the Councils of the Church. Traditional Catholics, as well as many Protestants, believe that even though politics was involved in the councils’ decrees, that God has preserved truth–even if sometimes people did bad things during the process of such preservation. Yes, It is a matter of faith. The distinction between doctrine and practice you make is overdone–yes, there are Christians who focus on doctrine and don’t practice the faith–they are like the demons–the devil himself is perfectly orthodox theologically. However, the practical stems from the theological, and for Catholics, God provides us the strength to do better through the sacraments. Every religion will have its hypocrites, its crooked politicians, and its charlatans. That is true of every other belief system, whether it be theistic, pantheistic, or atheistic. Rome has a long history that is a mixed bag, to say the least–partly that is due to its size and its large bureaucracy. That is not a problem unique to Rome or to Christianity. The church is a place for finite, fallen human beings, and while we should, with God’s help, strive for perfection, we will never reach it in this life–not even close. Grace comes into play then.
Aug 13, 2013 @ 16:25:43
Most Christians would check the box for Heaven though a few for Purgatory as their choice for an afterlife. However, here in this world they regard the path of virtue as a painful and unpleasant life and regard a life of sin as the easiest or at least the one that take the least effort. Your use of the expression “extreme mystics” is really a version of the same thing. I am sure most people regard becoming a saint as way too much of an effort. But I see a contradiction here. People are caught in the same self deception that the drug taker or heavy drinker is caught in. They affirm a preference for Heaven but at the same time regard the behavior of Heaven as suffering and misery. Strange. Eating healthy and nutritious food is best but junk food is tasty and easy to come by and so on . . . and then they get sick! Where does this assumption come from? Christianity is certainly a religion of fear. People fear death and a last judgement and so on. This seems to be especially true of Christianity although all the religions of the Book seem to be very extroverted and worldly–to me at least. And therefore ideal backing for empires and exploitive nations. Holy wars for example.
The Catholic Church after two thousand years was fairly inept at teaching me as a child anything of much value in dealing with fear and other negative emotions. Had I come across the teachings of an Emmet Fox for example I would have gotten some genuine practices. The Episcopal Church was no better. So from a purely practical point of view I believe I am right that Christianity is primarily a religion of beliefs. With very few actually doing much in the way of an inner life–something Christianity really does not support or encourage. Of course a very small percentage of a very huge number is still quite a few. I could provide you with all kinds of examples of Christians acting out their beliefs in intolerant fashions. Surely you are aware of this. Intolerance, dogmatism, judgementalism . . . rigidity. Originally Islam was not so intolerant. I do not know about Judaism as I can not determine what it is. Talmudic? The Pentateuch? The Jews keep it a secret.
Finally, so a disaster comes along and all of one’s possessions and love ones are gone. Now what? Since they were a major source of happiness, one is sad and despairing. It all depends on what one thinks is the case. Is it even really appropriate to grieve? If I have died I really do not want people to feel sad for me as I am simply on the next adventure. And I would hope they would put their energy into their own adventure in life and not dwell sadly on the past. But this is not the Christian way. Though Jesus did say let the dead bury the dead.
Aug 16, 2013 @ 04:10:34
Yes, there are all too many rigid and legalistic Christians. That is the theme of my horror screenplay, “Obedience,” about a preacher whose legalism eventually destroys him. You are right that Christians and adherents of Eastern religions have different attitudes towards death. Yet even that can be overplayed–in death bed visions, Americans tend to see religious figures or dead relatives and feel positively about the experience, while Indians saw the Lord of Death and were quite afraid (see the book, AT THE HOUR OF DEATH, on this point. Christianity may have become in some circles a religion of fear, but that is not what it should be.
Aug 18, 2013 @ 18:42:32
John, it is intriguing that you describe Christianity with loaded terms such as fear and legalistic. Faith is a fundamental principle of Christ’s Gospel. In Hebrews, Faith is defined as synonymous with hope. Elsewhere, fear is defined as the opposite of Faith. Faith is essential to Christianity because Christ’s atonement provides HOPE. Without Christ’s atonement, we could not hope to live again; Christ’s resurrection is the evidence that there is life after death, and it is obtainable. Not only does Christ’s atonement facilitate the eventual resurrection of us all, but it also enables forgiveness to those who repent throughout their lives and attempt to emulate Christ to again live with God. Hope stems from knowing that mortality, and all its inequities, is not all there is; there is something better, and it is achievable.
The first 5 books of the Old Testament/Torrah contain The Law of Moses. This was a lesser law given to Moses after he smashed the higher law upon seeing the abomination being committed by the children of Israel. The law of Moses is a legal system that indeed governed ancient Israel. Like most legal systems it is full of outward observances, “practices,” and prohiboption. It was prescribed specifically to curb sins from the outside using social institutions. The Talmud are the rabbanical interpretations of the Torrah, and for all intents and purposes is case law. Just as Supreme Court decisions are unfortunately conflated with the Constitution, Talmudic doctrines are just interpretations of The Law of Moses, albeit educated interpretations.
The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the higher law. Christ did not do away with The Law of Moses; He fulfilled it. Unlike the outward emphasis of the Law, the Gospel is internal. The Law changes people from the outside, while The Gospel changes them from within. Living the Gospel means that one chooses Christ as his example, i.e. a perfect role-model. As one attempts to emulate Christ, one comes to understand His doctrine and love Him. Like a feedback loop, the more one loves Christ, the more he will seek to emulate Him. The more one emulates and loves Him, the better one actually fulfills God’s laws. Obviously, emulating Christ means doing that which Jesus did. When one truly loves Christ, he gradually forsakes his sins, seeks forgivness, makes restitution to those he may have harmed, seeks to obey God’s commandments, and repeats as needed.
The Church is the body of Christ. As explained, it is full of flawed people. The only thing that sets them apart is that they at some point expressed a desire to emulate Christ–not that they had achieved that state. The Church is a composite between being a school and a mutual aid society. It is supposed to be a place of learning and workshop where one can recieve help in applying Christ’s teachings.
Aug 18, 2013 @ 21:07:01
Both terms, fear and legalistic, are valuable words–not necessarily more loaded than any others. I take a very practical view of religions and see that it is not easy to tell whether members of a religion act any better than people who have none. For example, a holy war or a just war seems as bloody as just an ordinary war. It is like the expression humanitarian intervention as in Libya. All we know is that things were made worse.
Objectively speaking Christianity is not a better religion than say Hinduism or Buddhism. The reason Christians say it is the only religion is that it is the dogma. Without that statement of belief they would not speak of better or worse with respect to other religions. This bit of intolerance has been the source of a lot of trouble over the centuries.
If religion x works for a person then that is wonderful. If religion y works for someone else that is wonderful too. Our mother and father were best for us but not necessarily better than anyone else’s mother and father.
Anyway just being a good Christian or Hindu is enough to keep a person busy and therefore not to have time to be comparing it to another religion. Wouldn’t you agree? The history of the West the last twenty centuries has been so violent and sordid that it is doubtful that Christianity has done much more than what the Greeks or Egyptians had; and who knows maybe it has made things worse. Certainly it has not produced outstanding people in large numbers.
Personally I prefer Yoga and Buddhism as both produce noticeable results. In both the emphasis has always been on practice and not on belief. Belief can lead to the life of self satisfaction. A kind of Hobbit life of good food, tobacco and freedom from adventure. In addition the findings of both practices are verifiable and not something one needs to wait for Heaven or the Second Coming or the Last Judgement for.
However, during the past two millennia every conceivable criticism has been made of Christianity. A minister could have soft ware that would allow a cogent response to any that came his way. And he could chose the historical period. Like–I will chose the High Middle Ages rebuttal of this one; and the Reformation response for that one. The proves the limits of reason.
Aug 12, 2013 @ 23:32:31
I am a Mormon, and regardless of whether sects choose to acknowledge as is irrelevant. As a devout Mormon I claim the privilege of worshipping Jesus Christ as my redeemer and savior by the Holy covenant of baptism. In doing so, I have espoused biblical morality, especially that of chastity. And while my covenant is between me and God, He has commanded that his gospel be preached from the rooftops until every knee shall bend and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ. I cannot stand idly by while this great country decays, rotting from the inside.
Like my ancestors who were deprived of their property, their liberties, and even their lives before being driven from their homes in Missouri and Illinois, I have felt the stigma of upholding my beliefs in the face of adversity. In 2008, I voted for morality; I voted to uphold the nuclear family as the the fundamental unit of society. I didn’t vote to deprive anyone of an inalienable right–divorce is the self-evident rebuttal of such nonsensical arguments–yet I and others of my faith have been publicly ridiculed mercilessly, for exercising our First Amendment rights and advocating biblical morality. The vitriol of the ensuing public discourse has been such that many of my friends and family have left California to escape the daily harassment and the perverse propaganda campaign.
It is a dereliction of their duty for California’s Governor and Attorney General to refuse to uphold the law before the Supreme Court, as pronounced by the voice of the people. Lest they repent, the ire of the Lord will be kindled against them. And woe be unto the people who have knowingly upheld such wicked leaders and delight in the perversities of the flesh for your recompense is nigh at hand, and no unclean thing can inherit the Kingdom. In their day of judgment many shall wail and nash their teeth with a bright rememberance their abominations, finally knowing that they have wasted their days of probation in pursuit of the lusts of the flesh and cannot hide them from the Lord’s piercing eyes.
Aug 13, 2013 @ 14:05:19
I am sympathetic to your strong position about those who damage the country so much. I do know some old-fashioned liberals with whom I can debate, but the new, post-1960s revolution breed of leftist–I am about to the point of thinking they are evil. I see that in academia all the time–such leftists are proud of being “superior” to those of us who accept traditional morality. Several have been condescending toward me personally–that I can handle–it’s the dissemination of their positions that does so much social harm. Pride, the assertion of self before God and His will, is the essence of evil. Lord knows I have plenty for which to answer to God myself, but Jesus also says, “Judge righteous judgment.” Those who support the murder of the unborn, the end of any restrictions on sexual morality except the traditional, and for whom orthodoxy is heresy and heresy is orthodoxy–I can fairly say that they are evil people.
Aug 13, 2013 @ 19:39:02
Stalin was equally clever during WWII when he re-started Holy Mother Russia and the Orthodox Church.
Oct 21, 2013 @ 23:34:09
Of course nations are not Christian. About all we can mean is that in the USA more persons are Christian than Muslim or Hindu. Unlike you I believe when a religion becomes a state religion as Christianity did over 1500 years ago it becomes an instrument of control first and foremost. Any perceived attack on the Church’s dogma becomes a crime and heresy takes birth. Heresy ruined Christianity in my opinion by making the dogma at times a matter of life or burning at a stake. Not a whole lot different from the Soviet era, especially under Stalin. While I would not necessarily see only Christianity as a source for totalitarianism it has certainly been a factor. Stalin considered himself to be helping God by removing scum from the earth. States also learned methods and techniques from the Roman Catholic Church as it did from the state. They were partners. Hersey deprived the Church of new life and insight and made it very authoritarian. It is painful to read Church history. The Church comes across as mean and cruel very frequently. And nothing has changed except that now the Church lacks the power it once had. It can not burn people at the stake. As we now know the state is happy to torture people. Nothing has changed. Objectively speaking I can find nothing that would persuade me to consider Christianity the one true religion. The one True Religion would surely turn out superior persons and superior societies. A true religion but not the only one. None are particularly successful. Americans feed on dreams–but this diet produces nightmares. I agree with Marguerie Porette that there is Church the Lesser, the institutional church, and Church the Greater. A great deal depends upon which you belong to.