It would be great to hear a substantive response to the content. But I guess disappointment is what I deserve, having expectations of reasoned debate on social media. I should just ditch the app and go back to just reading these in my inbox.
It would be great to hear a substantive response to the content. But I guess disappointment is what I deserve, having expectations of reasoned debate on social media. I should just ditch the app and go back to just reading these in my inbox.
Jacobs seems to read Renn's article to argue that there were more "real Christians" in America at some time in the past than there are now, or that American society was "more Christian" in the past than it is now. Neither of those is Renn's thesis.
I would put Renn's thesis as follows: in the past, America's elites and the majority of its population viewed Christianity positively and aspired to be perceived as Christian, whether they really believed or not. By contrast, today, America's elites, and an ever-growing share of its population, view Christianity negatively, and aspire to distance themselves from any association with it.
Jacobs asks: "Does Renn seriously think that the slaves in the cotton fields singing their spirituals were living in a Christianity-positive world?"
Yes, I suspect he does. That's why those slaves were singing Christian spirituals instead of chanting Marxist slogans, like BLM protesters likely would today.
Again, Renn's point is not that the America of the past ago was "more Christian" or "had more Christians" than the America of today. The point is that even oppressed people back then generally viewed Christianity positively and invoked it as both a source of spiritual comfort and a prospective driver of social progress. Nowadays, by contrast, Americans (oppressed or not) are more likely to view Christianity as a source of oppression and an inhibitor of social progress.
Virginia, thanks. The various references people have made to slavery or Jim Crow are bizarre. Those people were clearly being oppressed for being black, not Christian. Their oppression would not have ended if they renounced their faith.
It would be great to hear a substantive response to the content. But I guess disappointment is what I deserve, having expectations of reasoned debate on social media. I should just ditch the app and go back to just reading these in my inbox.
You have received a substantive response now from virginia, and please see Aaron's point below it. Do you have any response?
I'll take a shot at a substantive response.
Jacobs seems to read Renn's article to argue that there were more "real Christians" in America at some time in the past than there are now, or that American society was "more Christian" in the past than it is now. Neither of those is Renn's thesis.
I would put Renn's thesis as follows: in the past, America's elites and the majority of its population viewed Christianity positively and aspired to be perceived as Christian, whether they really believed or not. By contrast, today, America's elites, and an ever-growing share of its population, view Christianity negatively, and aspire to distance themselves from any association with it.
Jacobs asks: "Does Renn seriously think that the slaves in the cotton fields singing their spirituals were living in a Christianity-positive world?"
Yes, I suspect he does. That's why those slaves were singing Christian spirituals instead of chanting Marxist slogans, like BLM protesters likely would today.
Again, Renn's point is not that the America of the past ago was "more Christian" or "had more Christians" than the America of today. The point is that even oppressed people back then generally viewed Christianity positively and invoked it as both a source of spiritual comfort and a prospective driver of social progress. Nowadays, by contrast, Americans (oppressed or not) are more likely to view Christianity as a source of oppression and an inhibitor of social progress.
Virginia, thanks. The various references people have made to slavery or Jim Crow are bizarre. Those people were clearly being oppressed for being black, not Christian. Their oppression would not have ended if they renounced their faith.
It's on my list to look at some of Jacobs' various writings on this point. I just haven't gotten around to it yet.