You are here:   Ethnicity > Breaking Faith With Britain
 
The Reformation also had a view about governance as well as the significance of the individual, which was to prove important for the future. The theme of natural rights was taken up by the Dominicans on the Continent in the context of defending the freedom and the possessions of the indigenous inhabitants of the Americas. From there, it influenced prominent thinkers of the moderate Enlightenment in this country, such as John Locke, who were attempting to rethink a Christian basis for society. This was also the context for the Evangelical revival in the 18th century. While the Evangelicals drew inspiration from the Bible for their humanitarian projects, such as the abolition of slavery, universal education and humane conditions of work for men, women and children, the Enlightenment provided them with the intellectual tools and the moral vision of natural rights so that they could argue their case in the public sphere. It was this Evangelical-Enlightenment consensus which brought about the huge social changes of the 19th and early 20th centuries and which came under sustained attack in the second half of the 20th century.

Sociologists of religion have been telling us that the process of secularisation has been a very long one and, indeed, they locate its origin precisely in the Enlightenment’s rejection of heteronomous authority and its affirmation of autonomy. Historians, on the other hand, point out that faith flourished in industrial Britain in the 19th century and in the first part of the last century. Indeed, it is possible to say that it continued to prosper well into the 1950s. Was it long-term decline, then, or sudden demise? In fact, there are elements of truth in both approaches. It seems to be the case, however, that something momentous happened in the 1960s which has materially altered the scene: Christ­ianity began to be more and more marginal to the “public doctrine” by which the nation ordered itself, and this state of affairs has continued to the present day.

Many reasons have been given for this situation. Callum Brown has argued that it was the cultural revolution of the 1960s which brought Christianity’s role in society to an abrupt and catastrophic end. He notes, particularly, the part played by women in upholding piety and in passing on the faith in the home. It was the loss of this faith and piety among women which caused the steep decline in Christian observance in all sections of society. Peter Mullen and others, similarly, have traced the situation to the student unrest of the 1960s which they claim was inspired by Marxism of one sort or another. The aim was to overturn what I have called the Evangelical-Enlightenment consensus so that revolution might be possible. One of the ingredients in their tactics was to encourage a social and sexual revolution so that a political one would, in due course, come about. Mullen points out that instead of the Churches resisting this phenomenon, liberal theologians and Church leaders all but capitulated to the intellectual and cultural forces of the time.

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
Norman Hanscombe
June 2nd, 2008
3:06 AM
What a shame fundamentalists of all stipes, be they theists or non-theists, Marxists or Enlightenment Faithful, or anything else, all want to place the blame for the planet's problems at the door of the blind unquestioning beliefs of the adherents of other "answers". None is really interested in examining the role of human nature too carefully, because one thing all faiths have in common is that what they find doesn't always support the kind of "solution" that's too dear to their hearts to risk tight analysis which will endanger their (often noble) plans. Even universities began shying away from analysing popular accepted secular articles of faith in the sixties, so why should religions be held to a higher standard? If we're not careful, next thing you know we'll be questioning astrology, ouija boards, and other growth industries of the sixties. p.s. Your spam test is so difficult to interpret that I began to wonder if I really am human.

Peter Brawley
June 1st, 2008
5:06 PM
To Bill Hensley: A reasonable, testable explanation for the empirical finding is that religion trains people into irrationality & intolerance, & away from critical, mature thought. Of course a good empirical test would have to distinguish other effects & variables, eg effects of some religious activities on social cohesion.

Bill Hensley
June 1st, 2008
12:06 PM
Now we have gotten quite specific, Peter. I wonder if you could sketch for me the causal link between Christianity and criminality in the Western democracies.

Peter Brawley
June 1st, 2008
2:06 AM
To Bill Hensley: Religious and irreligious peoples alike have committed great atrocities. That argument doesn’t favour religion. Nor does the argument that christianity had some civilising influence in some earlier, more barbarous times. Amongst western democracies, the more religious a society is, the more criminal and disordered it is. Within such democracies, the more religious the area, the more criminal it is. Not accidental. Religion intentionally and explicitly teaches irrationality, stupidity and intolerance. True, it gives lip service to kinder doctrines. So do Islam and the rest. But the kernel of its instruction is to believe the dogma or be damned.

Bill Hensley
May 31st, 2008
5:05 PM
To Peter Brawley: You can as well argue the opposite. The greatest atrocities of the past century have been committed by nations which overtly discarded religion and sought to eliminate its influence. I would also argue that it is a mistake to lump all religions together when you make such sweeping broadsides as "Overall, the more religious a society is, the more crime, poverty, tyranny etc it suffers." With Bishop Nazir-Ali, I argue for the distinctiveness of Christianity as a civilizing influence in human culture. I would agree with you that the Islamic doctrine of jihad, the Hindu caste system, and the fatalism of Buddhist thought are negative influences to be resisted. I would put these in stark contrast to "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and and with all your strength and with all your mind, and love your neighbor as yourself."

Oliver Cromwell
May 31st, 2008
12:05 PM
Right on , Rochester! A man after my own heart.

FR Colin Griffiths.S.S.M.
May 31st, 2008
10:05 AM
As an Australian Citizen I am pleased to see Standpoint give such prominace to an article by a Bishop.I feel it is a very good piece , but I am uncomforable with it's general message. Would we be truly in a better place with leaders who were truly confessinfg christians. George Bush certainly gave the impression that he was a christian leader, it has been reported thathis administration made over 900 lies in the lead up to the Iraq war. His former press sectary alleges that his main purpose in going to war was a determination for re election. Jesus called us to laven in the lump , not to be agents of contol and donination.

Peter Brawley
May 31st, 2008
4:05 AM
In the UK and Northern Europe, dignity, equality, liberty, democracy, human rights, freedom of conscience, respect for the common good and hospitality became social & political realities not least via rebellion against established religion. These values "stand more strongly" in mainly irreligious societies than in more religious ones---because over the last hundred years or so, worthies in those countries had the wit to toss out idiotic religious superstitions in favour of secularism & humanism. Overall, the more religious a society is, the more crime, poverty, tyranny etc it suffers. That's no accident. Religion debilitates. To argue that we should bring back religion---christian or muslim---is incredibly stupid.

the deity formerly known as nigel6888
May 30th, 2008
10:05 PM
Congratulations on this piece. I and many like me are devastated and disappointed that the Christian faith, and its apparent leaders lack the moral fortitude to defend their corner. My Christianity is unashamedly of the muscular variety, I am intensely proud of the Judeo-Christian tradition, and am very much conscious that western civilisation would not exist without it. That is, without this tradition, there would be no "human rights" "womens rights", electricity, industrial revolution, etc etc.

Bill Hensley
May 30th, 2008
8:05 PM
To Brian: And on what alternate base would you establish the values of dignity, equality, liberty, safety and hospitality, which are essential to the formation of a civil society? These hard-won principles arose from the Christian tradition which you now seek to discard. They will not stand on their own.

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.