Modernity is a moving target. It is drifting constantly, because it is the progressive implementation of its insane premises, which are freedom, equality and relativism. These premises were born in Protestantism, where they were called Sola Fide, universal priesthood and Sola Scriptura, respectively.
No wonder Protestantism mixed well with modernity: they have the same basic concepts. Modernity is the secularization of Protestantism.
But, as modenity was innovating more and more while trying to implement freedom, equality and relativism, it was a matter of time that Modernity started adopting principles that were incompatible with Christianity, such as gay marriage. Then, it was time to decide.
Since the America state was founded on modernity over a Christian population, the good jobs demanded to be faithful to the official ideology, that is, modernity. Upper middle class did that and discarded Christianity.
What was the alternative? I dared to say that some progressive initiative in my job was not a good idea bwcause I wanted to be faithful to God and I am now unemployed. See how it works?
In fact, it would be more accurate to say that Protestantism is the first form of Modernity. As Modernity drifted away from Christianity, there was a first form, which were the first Protestant churches, such as the Luteran Church. The second wave was the Puritan churches, which increased equality, because there were no bishops, etc . The third step was the Enlightenment, as implemented by the Founding Fathers. Then the social gospel, socialdemocracy, political correctness and wokeness.
Each step is more and more freedom and equality and less Christianity. While Modernity was compatible with Protestant Christianity, there was cross-polinization between both. But in fact, America had been founded on modernity and Christianity was subordinate. It only thrived while it was compatible with modernity.
«Modernity is a moving target»
I presume you mean philosophical modernity?
Well, I meant philosophical modernity, yes. Jefferson and the woke belong to philosophical modernity, but they don’t have the same ideas. Philosophical modernity is the locigal development of the ideas of freedom, equality and relativism. In this aspect, the woke are more coherent the Jefferson. Jefferson said that all men were equal while having slaves. The fact is that equality is absurd and its logical development brings new levels of absurdity.
But, of course, technological modernity is also constantly changing, no doubt about it.
In fact, I don’t see «philosophical modernity» as a good term. I prefer to speak about «liberalism», «progressivism» or «the Enlightenment religion/ideology». Modernity comes from modern, which is only a term that means «recent things». This is too vague and not accurate enough. Scholasticism was modern in the 13th century and, today, there are modern societies that have nothing to do with liberalism (say, tribes in Afghanistan.
In fact, modernity is a term which have the myth of progress embedded in it. If someone opposes it, it is against modernity (meaning: «it is against progress, he wants to return to the Stone Age»). I prefer to use a neutral term.
For «technological modernity», I prefer to use «technological progress». I don’t believe in the myth of progress, with exception of technology, where progress is obvious.
The core problem of Protestantism is its intellectual instability hence it inability to maintain cohesion. But remember, instability goes both ways. Protestantism has an ability to become more rigorous and more lax.
Yes, Sola Scriptura gives Protestantism its instability. So it COULD become more rigorous and more lax. But, in the long term, Protestantism has the tendency to get more lax. Why?
Because Protestantism does not live in a vacuum. There are forces that go in a direction of making the human society more lax:
– Entropy, which favors a more lax environment. A rigorous society is a state of low entropy so it needs effort to maintain. A lax society does not require any effort. The same way you need effort in the winter to heat your cold home but you don’t need effort for your hot home to get cold. Second law of thermodynamics.
– Human instincts, which are programmed for the Paleolithic and try to return to the Paleolithic. Original sin and all that. This is why virtue is so difficult and vice is so easy and tempting.
– Philosophical modernity (liberalism), which tends to make Protestantism (and everything else) more lax.
The instability of Protestantism allows it to succumb to these forces more easily than other ideologies and religions.
Having said that, Protestantism is not the only factor here. Technological progress produces wealth that removes material obstacles to laxity.
«Modernity is the secularization of Protestantism.»
How is a Baptist fundamentalist a «modern»?
Of course, he is a modern. He is not a modern compared to the woke, but he is a modern compared to a traditional Catholic or Orthodox. Modernity is a moving target, as I said.
I am not an expert about Baptism fundamentalism. So I copy from the Internet. Please, feel free to explain me about Baptism fundamentalism beliefs.
«The beliefs are mainly Baptist and fundamentalists.[8] They refuse any form of ecclesial authority other than that of the local church. »
Well, this is a modern attitude. Only modernity rejects authority and hierarchy, which is present in all societies and religions in history, with no exception. This is derived from the Lutheran idea of universal priesthood, which is secularized as «equality».
«Great emphasis is placed on the literal interpretation of the Bible as the primary method of Bible study.»
Another modern attitude. Traditional views on the interpretation of the Bible were that only authorities should interpret the Bible and they could be interpreted it metaphorically (see Ireneus and Saint Augustine about the interpretation of Genesis). This is also derived from universal priesthood and Sola Scriptura (which is called «relativism» in modern times: every man has his own truth).
«Baptists believe that faith is a matter between God and the individual (religious freedom). To them it means the advocacy of absolute liberty of conscience.»
It couldn’t get more modern than that. Individualism, liberty of conscience and religious freedom are radically modern concepts and unimaginable in non-modern societies, in any time in history and in any religion.
«And what does the secularisation of Catholicism look like. Looking at some of the Pew Research figures in the U.S. the Catholics aren’t exactly pushing back the secular tide.»
But you are mixing three different topics.
First topic: Modernity is the secularization of Protestantism. Or, better, Protestantism is the first form of Modernity. This is a topic that is independent from the secularization of Catholicism. We were talking about Protestantism, not about Catholicism.
Second topic: What does the secularization of Catholicism looks like?
Third topic: Is Catholicism effective against secularization?
About the first topic, I have written long comments and nothing I have said has to do with Catholicism. It is a topic about the ORIGIN of modernity, not about a strategy to fight against it. My thesis is that Modernity is a byproduct of Protestantism and, even if Catholicism was Satan’s work, this wouldn’t change a bit my reasoning. I have not said that Catholicism or Protestantism is good or bad. I am only trying to describe the situation.
About the second topic, the secularization of Catholicism is the abandonment of Catholicism, whether totally or partially («Cafeteria Catholicism» where you pick and choose the beliefs you want to follow). Because traditional Catholicism cannot be secularized, you have to adopt Protestant values (such as liberty of conscience) to secularize Catholicism. In fact, after Council Vatican II, Catholicism is a mixture of Protestantism and traditional Catholicism.
This won’t be easy to explain. English is not my native language.
The upward mobility of the bourgeoisie doomed the Ancient Regime, where rulers were the absolute kings, the nobles and the Church. The bourgeois wanted to rule so they needed an ideology against traditional Catholicism, which favored hierarchy, the divine right of kings, the traditional customs and laws. In short, the Ancient Regime.
In the Protestant countries, it was easier. They had Sola Scriptura, so they could invent new versions of Christianity that were more in line with equality. You see an evolution to Puritan versions of Protestantism, where there were no bishops or hierarchy. This is the first form of Modernity. In «Albion’s Seed: Four British Folkways in America», you see that Massachusetts Puritan were egalitarians and they reacted with horror when some nobles tried to go to Massachussetts to rule over them. Quakers are a completely modern movement.
«Quakers seek to experience God directly […] Quakerism is a way of life, rather than a set of beliefs. It has roots in Christianity and many Quakers find the life and teachings of Jesus inspirational, but we have no creed. […] Our inner experience leads us to be committed to equality, peace, simplicity and truth; all of which we try to live out in our lives.»
It does not get more modern than that.
My point is that the flexibility of Protestantism allowed Protestant countries to abandon Christianity little by little, step by step. It was a progressive movement and not universal. Some sects secularized and abandoned Christianity, other remained closer to Christianity. So there was a split in ideology:
– Liberalism, as the secularization of Protestantism.
– Classical Protestantism, as the traditional form of Protestantism.
These two branches of the same movement influenced each other and coexisted, until Modernity moved so far away from Christianity (gay marriage) that was impossible to coexist. Then, the upper middle classe rejected Protestantism and embraced Liberalism.
Catholicism couldn’t do that. It couldn’t reject the dogmas, especially after the Council of Trent. So it couldn’t drift away from Christianity little by little, step by step. It was all-or-nothing. So the first strategy of the Catholic Church was to resist, reject liberalism (what you call «philosophical modernity»). Félix Sardà y Salvany wrote a book called «Liberalism is a sin» .
Meanwhile, revolutionaries in Catholic countries rejected completely Catholicism and adopted Liberalism from Protestant countries. So it was more traumatic in Catholic countries. The revolutionaries fought against the Church: they couldn’t invent new forms of Christianity that were more and more liberal, such as in the States.
Even when revolutionaries won the political power (after the bourgeois revolutions), most people remained Catholic and they didn’t secularized. When the secularization came (20th century) was an abandonment of Catholicism and a complete adoption of Liberalism (that is, secularized Protestantism). It was not a slow drifting away from the Church for centuries. The generation of the parents was Catholic and the generation of their children were not Christian at all. In Spain, this process happened during the 80s and in Ireland during the 90s. As a Spanish guy, I lived the completely Catholic society of my childhood and the completely atheistic society of today. This was fast. I lived a process that took centuries in other countries.
So Catholicism is unable to secularize in the same way Protestantism has done. To secularize Catholicism is to abandon Catholicism. Joe Biden is a Catholic Only in Name, as many Catholics. While Protestantism could secularize little by little and some sects could retain parts of traditional Christianity, because they were more flexible, until a point where Modernity was so absurd and anti-Christian that this could not be done any more.
Looking at some of the Pew Research figures in the U.S. the Catholics aren’t exactly pushing back the secular tide. Catholic membership hasn’t made Joe Biden a paragon of traditionalism. The lion’s share of «conservative pushback» is being done by the Evangelicals.
Agree with that. But this was not my point. My point is that the origin of Modernity is the secularization of Protestantism. In fact, Protestantism is the earliest form of Modernity. And this is completely unrelated. I never said that Catholicism is better than Protestantism to fight current versions of Modernity (or the other way around). I was making a historic point about the origins.
The key issue is the relationship of faith to Grace. And it’s my opinion that certain strands of Protestantism are Graced. Mainline Protestantism isn’t. (It may have been at one time.)
This is a matter of opinion and I don’t have any bad will against Protestants, who I regard as my brethren in faith. And my text has been very long. I don’t want to give my opinion, which would require to write more and more. It’s enough.