the death of christian britain
I've already talked about Dennis and Erdos's book Families Without Fatherhood, the one that says it's better for children to be brought up in the traditional two-parent family. The second thesis of this book was that this breakdown in traditional family arrangements is what has caused the growth of crime and general incivility which has been seen in Britain since the 1960s.
A book which I've been revisiting since then is Callum Brown's Death of Christian Britain (2001). He argues that national religion hasn't so much been declining as that it's been abruptly rejected - since the 1960s Britain has suddenly abandoned the Christian morals and values which had characterised it for centuries. It only took us forty years to forsake Christianity, he says in the introduction, compared to the thousand or so years of practicing it [sic].
Quote: "The generation that grew up in the sixties was more dissimilar to the generation of its parents than in any previous century. The moral metamorphosis directly affected the churches' domain: the decline of marriage, the rise of divorce and remarriage, the rise of cohabitation in place of marriage ... decreasing stigmatisation of illegitimacy, homosexuality and sexual licence, the growing recourse to birth control and abortion, and the irresistible social pressures for government liberalisation of restrictions on drinking, Sunday closing and recreation. The range of the changes in demography, personal relationships, political debate and moral concerns was so enormous that it did not so much challenge the Christian churches as bypass them," p190.
Both these books are rich sources of comment.
[Edited 20 March 06]
A book which I've been revisiting since then is Callum Brown's Death of Christian Britain (2001). He argues that national religion hasn't so much been declining as that it's been abruptly rejected - since the 1960s Britain has suddenly abandoned the Christian morals and values which had characterised it for centuries. It only took us forty years to forsake Christianity, he says in the introduction, compared to the thousand or so years of practicing it [sic].
Quote: "The generation that grew up in the sixties was more dissimilar to the generation of its parents than in any previous century. The moral metamorphosis directly affected the churches' domain: the decline of marriage, the rise of divorce and remarriage, the rise of cohabitation in place of marriage ... decreasing stigmatisation of illegitimacy, homosexuality and sexual licence, the growing recourse to birth control and abortion, and the irresistible social pressures for government liberalisation of restrictions on drinking, Sunday closing and recreation. The range of the changes in demography, personal relationships, political debate and moral concerns was so enormous that it did not so much challenge the Christian churches as bypass them," p190.
Both these books are rich sources of comment.
- if the churches were bypassed by these changes, it isn't because they had nothing to say on things like marriage or drinking, but because they weren't being listened to any more
- the decline in respect for what was traditionally thought of as morality seems to have gone hand in hand with what you might call selfish behaviour, prioritising your own perceived benefit over that of other people's, to their disadvantage
- even though people have rejected Christianity, they're still religious; non-Christian religions seem to be growing, eg
- if the churches were so decisively rejected when their message they were preaching was the orthodox gospel (or by and large, and to a much greater extent than today), what implications does that have for the future of orthodox churches now?
- if the introduction of user-friendly gimmics in churches now still isn't halting the decline, what implications does that have for the future of the nice and cosy reincarnations of churches?
[Edited 20 March 06]
2 Comments:
I'd say that:
1) WWII probably scared the religion out of alot of people. While they might still have believed in god, the churches may have failed them
2) I'd also check economics. I don't know any numbers of course, but if people were getting poorer, they are more likely to turn to crime. Money, not religion, might be the cause of the crime rate
3) birth rates. More people tends to mean fewer jobs. so more crime. Also, parents having more kids means less money in the house. And we've seen where poverty leads.
The fact is that churches tend to stay in the past. Lots of people want to move forward. They want to think, have their opinions listened to.
Of course, the 60s (at least in the U.S.) were a time of change and individual thought and the challenging of authority.
None of this boded well for the church.
just some quick thoughts
By moleboy, at 11:17 pm
Cheers moleboy! Good to hear from you. If you come back, i'm interested in this comment about churches staying in the past when people want to move forward ... cos the churches had stayed teaching roughly the same thing in Britain for hundreds of years, and the church and the rest of society were going roughly hand in hand as far as perceptions of morality, authority, etc were concerned. So what I'm mostly interested in is, how come there was this drastic change at this particular time 40-50 years ago? Or maybe you could challenge that there's been any drastic changes, ie put it all down to perception and rose-tinted spectacles. But why has religion (traditional christian religion) been so successfully marginalised now, when it survived so many generations up to now.
By cath, at 1:56 pm
Post a Comment
<< Home