10 Comments
User's avatar
Tom Golden's avatar

Excellent article Stephen. Sadly, churches are not immune from brainwashing. So many highly intelligent folks now resemble the walking dead.

Expand full comment
Stephen Baskerville's avatar

Precisely

Expand full comment
Vineet Mansukhani's avatar

Speaker in linked video, David Barton, Wallbuilders, has a collection of period artifacts and documents that verify that the role of biblical principles and heavy constant oversight of citizen chridtians in keeping the state moral akin to present day Orthodox Christian Russia. The state, church, and family were kept in balance by the biblical duty to oversee the state and check its relentless tendency to suppress the church and family. Use the video frame zip file to match the most appropriate frame to prospect to encourage rediscovery of this vital role who's absence has left the barn door open.

Video: rebrand.ly/DBarton

Zip file w video frames: rebrand.ly/DBartonZip

Expand full comment
Stephen D. Finstein's avatar

It seems to me that the Church has always been more about surveillance and control of its adherents as opposed to being effective in controlling and limiting the King, especially in societies where there is an "official" religion. Of course there are exceptions and notable theologians who sacrificed their lives trying to limit the state. As I think about it, the Church and churches in general do provide a meeting place, a sanctuary, where revolutionary ideas can be hatched under the cover of "worship."

Expand full comment
Stephen Baskerville's avatar

Yes, your last point is key.  America was settled by dissenters, in fact revolutionaries who rejected the established church -- and state -- and either departed or  overthrew both.  The fact that they then created their own systems of "surveillance and control" (very appropriate phrase), in fact quite authoritarian ones, in both England and New England does not negate the fact that the overall effect was to limit state power, because the churches were alternative polities to the state and because they could not agree among themselves about the new states they wanted and so their attempted "theocracies" failed.  

Expand full comment
James Plevick's avatar

Another terrific article from Baskerville, surely the world's most percipient academic.

Expand full comment
Stephen Baskerville's avatar

Your words are very kind. I assure you, it is not easy.

Expand full comment
David Shackleton's avatar

No one neutered the churches. They did it to themselves, by inhibiting themselves with identity politics and political correctness at the same time that the academy was doing the same thing, starting back in the sixties and continuing since then. All of the effects that you describe are details of the rolling out of those identity political social sanctions into various societal groups and organizations, and are thus more of the nature of consequences rather than causes.

Expand full comment
Stephen Baskerville's avatar

Yes, absolutely true on some level. But that does not let the rest of us off the hook. Who allowed them to do that and who filled the void? The professional political class now claims to fight the battles that citizens and churches used to fight. Are they really doing it, and what can we do about it when they do not or when they fail?

Expand full comment
David Shackleton's avatar

Stephen, you are right, that is the key issue. The professional political class are fighting the wrong battles, they are caught up in the divisive ideology of CRT and identity politics, and so they are making things worse rather than better. They are all virtue-signalling, moral supremacy movements (that's what you get when your basic philosophy is built on guilty classes and innocent classes, oppressors and victims). We are indeed in bad shape, and we don't even know the nature of the problem, most of us. The left is caught up in it, and the right doesn't understand that they are largely paralyzed by it, most of them afraid of being shamed.

Expand full comment