Opinion of quote "A Christian society would be what we now call Leftist"?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

This is from Mere Christianity of all books. In context (I'm not even quoting the whole sentence, much less the whole paragraph) Lewis is making the pretty common observation that the default Christian political approach is socioeconomically to the left but socioculturally to the right of generalized secular liberalism. Out of context, though, it sounds like something you'd read in a tractate by some based-in-more-ways-than-one Bolivian village curate.

[DaleCooper]

It's tough to argue with honestly. If you read the New Testament, Christian day-to-day life and organization seems to be very collectivist and revolves around communities providing for the needs of each other. I've long argued that biblical Christianity is completely incompatible with the lifestyles of modern Americans.

[Aurelius]

It's tough to argue with honestly. If you read the New Testament, Christian day-to-day life and organization seems to be very collectivist and revolves around communities providing for the needs of each other. I've long argued that biblical Christianity is completely incompatible with the lifestyles of modern Americans.

And basically any large, complex society.

No wonder that Christianity has developed so many interpretations to shoehorn it into literally any ideological framework you can think of. Jesus gave the slaves and the oppressed dignity and worth, but he gave them no guidance for how to live once they were no longer slaves or oppressed.

Yeah I know, I'm a broken record on this.

[DaleCooper]

It's tough to argue with honestly. If you read the New Testament, Christian day-to-day life and organization seems to be very collectivist and revolves around communities providing for the needs of each other. I've long argued that biblical Christianity is completely incompatible with the lifestyles of modern Americans.

And basically any large, complex society.

No wonder that Christianity has developed so many interpretations to shoehorn it into literally any ideological framework you can think of. Jesus gave the slaves and the oppressed dignity and worth, but he gave them no guidance for how to live once they were no longer slaves or oppressed.

Yeah I know, I'm a broken record on this.

I think the issue is that Christianity was clearly never expected to be a majority religion. A big part of why Christians in America get so conspiratorial is because they have to pretend that they're persecuted, as persecution is an essential part of the Christian faith.

[sting in the rafters]

Ah yes leftism and its ideological fervor towards checks notes perpetuating the cult of domesticity (Yes, Corinthians 14:33-35 was fair for its day in allowing women to publicly worship period however you’d think a divinely-inspired Paul would dictate a more universalist message.) Remember, Fuzzy Bear is more representative of Christianity than anyone else on this forum.

[afleitch]

This is from Mere Christianity of all books. In context (I'm not even quoting the whole sentence, much less the whole paragraph) Lewis is making the pretty common observation that the default Christian political approach is socioeconomically to the left but socioculturally to the right of generalized secular liberalism. Out of context, though, it sounds like something you'd read in a tractate by some based-in-more-ways-than-one Bolivian village curate.

From what I remember, he calls the 'sociocultural' aspect old-fashioned, even for the time he was writing. My take is that I think it was a tacit admission that such an approach (biblically based, or otherwise) or an emphasis on this being 'real' Christianity was effectively impossible in an industrial society. But at the same time, redistributionist leftism or welfarism as he knew it was structurally impossible then (time of Jesus etc) but was possible at the time he wrote and indeed was being implemented at the time the book was collected.

What thoughts he may have had on the later British 1950's sociocultural conservative 'redoubt' (that has unwound and took religious observance with it) at the time of the greatest strength of the welfare state, I have no idea.

[DaleCooper]

Ah yes leftism and its ideological fervor towards checks notes perpetuating the cult of domesticity (Yes, Corinthians 14:33-35 was fair for its day in allowing women to publicly worship period however you’d think a divinely-inspired Paul would dictate a more universalist message.) Remember, Fuzzy Bear is more representative of Christianity than anyone else on this forum.

He absolutely is not. He's representative of Christian-themed American cultural conservatism, but there's nothing biblical about any of it. People who haven't read the bible, or don't care about anything it actually says, don't realize just how incompatible the American lifestyle is with biblical Christianity.

The New Testament is clear that a Christian's efforts outside of earning a modest living are to be wholly dedicated to serving others in the name of Christ. There is no honest reading of the bible in which sitting in a La-Z-Boy in a comfy American home can be seen as representative of Christianity.

If we're judging based on the standards set in the Christian scripture, no one on this website is representative of Christianity.

[sting in the rafters]

Ah yes leftism and its ideological fervor towards checks notes perpetuating the cult of domesticity (Yes, Corinthians 14:33-35 was fair for its day in allowing women to publicly worship period however you’d think a divinely-inspired Paul would dictate a more universalist message.) Remember, Fuzzy Bear is more representative of Christianity than anyone else on this forum.

The New Testament is clear that a Christian's efforts outside of earning a modest living are to be wholly dedicated to serving others in the name of Christ. There is no honest reading of the bible in which sitting in a La-Z-Boy in a comfy American home can be seen as representative of Christianity.

Fair enough lmfao

[bagelman]

I somewhat agree, but it would also be very socially right wing.

[jojoju1998]

Ah yes leftism and its ideological fervor towards checks notes perpetuating the cult of domesticity (Yes, Corinthians 14:33-35 was fair for its day in allowing women to publicly worship period however you’d think a divinely-inspired Paul would dictate a more universalist message.) Remember, Fuzzy Bear is more representative of Christianity than anyone else on this forum.

Bible verses can't be taken literally though; all the time.

[jojoju1998]

This is from Mere Christianity of all books. In context (I'm not even quoting the whole sentence, much less the whole paragraph) Lewis is making the pretty common observation that the default Christian political approach is socioeconomically to the left but socioculturally to the right of generalized secular liberalism. Out of context, though, it sounds like something you'd read in a tractate by some based-in-more-ways-than-one Bolivian village curate.

What people like CS Lewis propose is Catholic social Teaching ( although Lewis himself was a Anglican ),

Care for the Poor, Unions, The Enviroment, more skeptical of Capitalism than others; and at the same time, socially conservative, and staunch opposition of Socialism.

[jojoju1998]

Ah yes leftism and its ideological fervor towards checks notes perpetuating the cult of domesticity (Yes, Corinthians 14:33-35 was fair for its day in allowing women to publicly worship period however you’d think a divinely-inspired Paul would dictate a more universalist message.) Remember, Fuzzy Bear is more representative of Christianity than anyone else on this forum.

He absolutely is not. He's representative of Christian-themed American cultural conservatism, but there's nothing biblical about any of it. People who haven't read the bible, or don't care about anything it actually says, don't realize just how incompatible the American lifestyle is with biblical Christianity.

The New Testament is clear that a Christian's efforts outside of earning a modest living are to be wholly dedicated to serving others in the name of Christ. There is no honest reading of the bible in which sitting in a La-Z-Boy in a comfy American home can be seen as representative of Christianity.

If we're judging based on the standards set in the Christian scripture, no one on this website is representative of Christianity.

Fuzzy Bear is a Evangelical Protestant who believes that the Bible is the ONLY source of inspitarion, thus he has to take it literally; every word.

Of course; the Catholics and the Orthodoxs would say no; of course not.

[DaleCooper]

Ah yes leftism and its ideological fervor towards checks notes perpetuating the cult of domesticity (Yes, Corinthians 14:33-35 was fair for its day in allowing women to publicly worship period however you’d think a divinely-inspired Paul would dictate a more universalist message.) Remember, Fuzzy Bear is more representative of Christianity than anyone else on this forum.

He absolutely is not. He's representative of Christian-themed American cultural conservatism, but there's nothing biblical about any of it. People who haven't read the bible, or don't care about anything it actually says, don't realize just how incompatible the American lifestyle is with biblical Christianity.

The New Testament is clear that a Christian's efforts outside of earning a modest living are to be wholly dedicated to serving others in the name of Christ. There is no honest reading of the bible in which sitting in a La-Z-Boy in a comfy American home can be seen as representative of Christianity.

If we're judging based on the standards set in the Christian scripture, no one on this website is representative of Christianity.

Fuzzy Bear is a Evangelical Protestant who believes that the Bible is the ONLY source of inspitarion, thus he has to take it literally; every word.

Of course; the Catholics and the Orthodoxs would say no; of course not.

He says that, but on certain issues he twists it around to mean other things. I remember he and ER said that Jesus Christ's explicit condemnation of public prayer as actually technically only applying to Jewish Pharisees 2000 years ago. They're very creative when they need to be to defend modern "christian" culture, which the Bible very much comes second to.

But this is a bit rude, he's not even part of this conversation. The only reason I responded to that earlier thing is because I strongly disagree with the notion that any American fake christians are representative of the Bible because their lifestyles and behavior are completely foreign to anything prescribed by the New Testament.

[jojoju1998]

Ah yes leftism and its ideological fervor towards checks notes perpetuating the cult of domesticity (Yes, Corinthians 14:33-35 was fair for its day in allowing women to publicly worship period however you’d think a divinely-inspired Paul would dictate a more universalist message.) Remember, Fuzzy Bear is more representative of Christianity than anyone else on this forum.

He absolutely is not. He's representative of Christian-themed American cultural conservatism, but there's nothing biblical about any of it. People who haven't read the bible, or don't care about anything it actually says, don't realize just how incompatible the American lifestyle is with biblical Christianity.

The New Testament is clear that a Christian's efforts outside of earning a modest living are to be wholly dedicated to serving others in the name of Christ. There is no honest reading of the bible in which sitting in a La-Z-Boy in a comfy American home can be seen as representative of Christianity.

If we're judging based on the standards set in the Christian scripture, no one on this website is representative of Christianity.

Fuzzy Bear is a Evangelical Protestant who believes that the Bible is the ONLY source of inspitarion, thus he has to take it literally; every word.

Of course; the Catholics and the Orthodoxs would say no; of course not.

He says that, but on certain issues he twists it around to mean other things. I remember he and ER said that Jesus Christ's explicit condemnation of public prayer as actually technically only applying to Jewish Pharisees 2000 years ago. They're very creative when they need to be to defend modern "christian" culture, which the Bible very much comes second to.

But this is a bit rude, he's not even part of this conversation. The only reason I responded to that earlier thing is because I strongly disagree with the notion that any American fake christians are representative of the Bible because their lifestyles and behavior are completely foreign to anything prescribed by the New Testament.

The bolded part is exactly my point. Since there is no " official " interpreter in his branch of Christianity; Fuzzy Bear can therefore twist the words of the Bible as long as the " Holy Spirit " inspires him.

For Catholics ( ala me ), We believe that Jesus and God revealed himself through the Church itself, which consists of both Sacred Scipture and Sacred Tradition.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

I don't think so. If leftism has been concerned to ameliorate material deprivation and level or remove socioeconomic inequalities, (mainstream, traditional) Christianity has historically held that 1) material wealth is suspicious or outright sinful, and 2) the inequalities that exist in this world are ordained by God and will only be removed in the next.

It's true there's a strong ethic of charity in Christianity, but it's as much or even more concerned with its benefit to the giver's soul than to the receiver's material well-being, and charity is not supposed to end poverty or the divide between rich and poor as a leftist society would seek to. And it goes without saying that generally as far as Christians are concerned charity is an individual voluntaristic act, not a social institution like state welfare. Hell, often the argument in the New Testament is that poor people are superior to the rich by virtue of being poor, which is certainly not the modern leftist argument that poor people should be made wealthier today. "The first will be last and the last will be first" is the exact opposite of a call for economic equality in human society.

One could also mention various Christian communist sects which have sprung up throughout the religion's history that sought to create the Kingdom of God or the prelapsarian paradise on Earth in their community, usually in association with some radical antinomianism, but they were traditionally marginal to Christianity and are also a somewhat awkward fit with modern leftism with their lack of a notion of economic or social progress. The societal vision of a sect like the Diggers is these days probably more akin to something like a reactionary trad fantasy than anything modern leftists would like, IMO.

[jojoju1998]

I don't think so. If leftism has been concerned to ameliorate material deprivation and level or remove socioeconomic inequalities, (mainstream, traditional) Christianity has historically held that 1) material wealth is suspicious or outright sinful, and 2) the inequalities that exist in this world are ordained by God and will only be removed in the next.

It's true there's a strong ethic of charity in Christianity, but it's as much or even more concerned with its benefit to the giver's soul than to the receiver's material well-being, and charity is not supposed to end poverty or the divide between rich and poor as a leftist society would seek to. And it goes without saying that generally as far as Christians are concerned charity is an individual voluntaristic act, not a social institution like state welfare. Hell, often the argument in the New Testament is that poor people are superior to the rich by virtue of being poor, which is certainly not the modern leftist argument that poor people should be made wealthier today. "The first will be last and the last will be first" is the exact opposite of a call for economic equality in human society.

One could also mention various Christian communist sects which have sprung up throughout the religion's history that sought to create the Kingdom of God or the prelapsarian paradise on Earth in their community, usually in association with some radical antinomianism, but they were traditionally marginal to Christianity and are also a somewhat awkward fit with modern leftism with their lack of a notion of economic or social progress. The societal vision of a sect like the Diggers is these days probably more akin to something like a reactionary trad fantasy than anything modern leftists would like, IMO.

It depends on what branch of Christianity you're talking about.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     There are superficial similarities, but important core differences. Bagelman is right that a Christian society would be socially very conservative by modern standards, but that is downstream from the real issue, which is that leftism does not have a concept of the Fall, and for that reason diverges from Christianity in some very important ways. Perhaps the most relevant divergence is the conviction of the leftist that the ideal society can be built on Earth by human hands, and objections to this project based in human nature (a concept that is foundational to the Christian anthropology, because that nature is now corrupted and therefore tends towards alienation from God) are typically dismissed as reactionary deflection. For the Christian, the ideal society can only be built by God, and I would go so far as to say that no properly Christian society can exist prior to the eschaton. With that in mind I would be inclined to agree with the topic quote, but in such a way that my agreement would be essentially worthless to the political leftist.

[jojoju1998]

     There are superficial similarities, but important core differences. Bagelman is right that a Christian society would be socially very conservative by modern standards, but that is downstream from the real issue, which is that leftism does not have a concept of the Fall, and for that reason diverges from Christianity in some very important ways. Perhaps the most relevant divergence is the conviction of the leftist that the ideal society can be built on Earth by human hands, and objections to this project based in human nature (a concept that is foundational to the Christian anthropology, because that nature is now corrupted and therefore tends towards alienation from God) are typically dismissed as reactionary deflection. For the Christian, the ideal society can only be built by God, and I would go so far as to say that no properly Christian society can exist prior to the eschaton. With that in mind I would be inclined to agree with the topic quote, but in such a way that my agreement would be essentially worthless to the political leftist.

Catholics do have their social teaching however. And many European Governments have a tradition of Christian Democracy.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     There are superficial similarities, but important core differences. Bagelman is right that a Christian society would be socially very conservative by modern standards, but that is downstream from the real issue, which is that leftism does not have a concept of the Fall, and for that reason diverges from Christianity in some very important ways. Perhaps the most relevant divergence is the conviction of the leftist that the ideal society can be built on Earth by human hands, and objections to this project based in human nature (a concept that is foundational to the Christian anthropology, because that nature is now corrupted and therefore tends towards alienation from God) are typically dismissed as reactionary deflection. For the Christian, the ideal society can only be built by God, and I would go so far as to say that no properly Christian society can exist prior to the eschaton. With that in mind I would be inclined to agree with the topic quote, but in such a way that my agreement would be essentially worthless to the political leftist.

Catholics do have their social teaching however. And many European Governments have a tradition of Christian Democracy.

     Christianity can and does have political ramifications, but it is not by its nature a political project. It is true that the Roman Catholic Church has social teaching, but never has that been understood as being its doctrinal core or the highest purpose of its calling.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

     There are superficial similarities, but important core differences. Bagelman is right that a Christian society would be socially very conservative by modern standards, but that is downstream from the real issue, which is that leftism does not have a concept of the Fall, and for that reason diverges from Christianity in some very important ways. Perhaps the most relevant divergence is the conviction of the leftist that the ideal society can be built on Earth by human hands, and objections to this project based in human nature (a concept that is foundational to the Christian anthropology, because that nature is now corrupted and therefore tends towards alienation from God) are typically dismissed as reactionary deflection. For the Christian, the ideal society can only be built by God, and I would go so far as to say that no properly Christian society can exist prior to the eschaton. With that in mind I would be inclined to agree with the topic quote, but in such a way that my agreement would be essentially worthless to the political leftist.

Catholics do have their social teaching however. And many European Governments have a tradition of Christian Democracy.

     Christianity can and does have political ramifications, but it is not by its nature a political project. It is true that the Roman Catholic Church has social teaching, but never has that been understood as being its doctrinal core or the highest purpose of its calling.

Christian democracy is also not really a leftist political tradition, although it is an antifascist and more broadly antiautocratic one (hence the name) and seems leftist to many American observers because of its economic interventionism.