Cris--
Some scholars, Pagels and Armstrong among them (worth mentioning since I abuse both so liberally), have noted a number of revolutionary developments surrounding Chrisitanity, its advent, and its fragmentation.
We might, historically, declare that certainly Locke, Rousseau, and others would not necessarily have arrived at their conclusions without certain aspects of the Christian heritage concerning the relationship between the state, the church, and the individual. In Christianity's Roman tale, the personalized relationship described 'twixt the worshipper and the godhead seemed somewhat (though not wholly) new. Strangely, the philosophers whose work would lend to American independence movement (which owes quite a bit to religious sentiments concerning liberty) were not saying anything new, per se. Rather, I have seen it expressed by those "some scholars" that such libertarian ideas as the European philosophers would bequeath to American minds are merely formalizations of familiar concepts existing at least since the Christians took on Rome.
In that sense, and as regards the process you theorize, I think we see a number of conceptual similarities. Recently I joked that Christianity as an institution was about market-share. While it's not as much of a joke as I usually treat it, there is the appearance of a valid idea.
Consider Tertullian's insistence on
regula fidei. Certainly that worked to the church's
political advantage, but it is difficult, in such retrospect to which you and I are accustomed, to determine exactly what spiritual advantage this gained, or how one achieves the goal of moving closer to god by blindly rejecting the parts of the message are too tough to summarize in a sound-bite. The internet itself guarantees the death of Christian regula fidei; rather, what portions of such faith still exist.
The formal Trinity and the Nicene Creed both contain political accessions to the Holy Spirit; and the final development of these ideas was marred by political squabbling. As we see the church(es) desperately revising their presentation of God, we see it not in the learning spirit we might expect--that is, the pleasure of learning more about God's universe, as such--but as a last-minute acknowledgement of what everyone outside the church has known for years, decades, or even centuries. When I was in Catholic school, I knew
teachers who rejected Copernicus and Galileo on old "church" grounds, and would proudly trump lists of scientists through history who denounced their own work on their deathbeds. It did occur to me to wonder, when the Pope acknowledged some of those persecutions of science as wrong, what those particular small-minded faithful thought. I mean, the Pope finally figured out that evolution
does not present a conflict with Genesis only a couple of years ago. This late entry to the common-sense race offers mixed emotions: perhaps the churches are ready to come back to society; perhaps it's just a last-ditch market trick to counteract the wariness of potential converts who see the absurdity of a literalist interpretation of Genesis.
I generally attribute dramatic shifts in the faith-paradigm as desperate; the seeming eleventh-hour conversion of religious ideology speaks ill of genuine sentiment. So it is, I think, with the general theology. Why is God supposed to be A-#1, honcho-God? To dispel notions that the pagan gods of early converts could beat Yahweh-god up. (My god is greater than your god.
Oh yeah? Well, my God is greater than anything which can be conceived!)
In terms of market-share, we might watch the way in which the church appeals directly to people. The poor and marginalized are Christianity's primary targets, won with quite simple promises of living improvement and the eternal rewards of faith. Where conduct and obedience are the issues among the poor, the church appeals largely to the compassion of the rich. Whether those rich respond with compassion is entirely up to the rich; it is generally enough to have that class on-board in declaration only.
Market-share and dominion ... I suppose there
has, after all, been about a two-hour break in my writing, during which time I had to accommodate my job (can you imagine!), so I'm left with a very disorganized version of what I would have offered.
But I think those shifts in the faith paradigm are hardly genuine, and specifically designed to keep the Q-ratings from slipping.
Too bad about losing hold of the concept; if I get it back, I'll try a more organized approach.
thanx,
Tiassa
------------------
No, don't seek control, and the milk of heaven will flow. Why would you want to keep it from anyone? (Floater)