"Christianity is the religion of the end of religion"

[Vouthon]

The recent thread by @Sunstone regarding the decline of religiosity in the West, reminded me of the French atheist historian Marcel Gauchet and his controversial theory that Christianity is “the religion of the end of religion” as put forward in his book The Disenchantment of the World: A Political History of Religion (original French title: Le Désenchantement du monde. Une histoire politique de la religion, Gallimard, Paris, 1985).

The idea that Christianity has played, and will continue to play, a sort of 'midwife' role in the birth of secular societies is not a novel concept.

Indeed, it has been pushed relentlessly by many researchers and intellectuals, beginning with Nietzsche himself. The most exemplary account was given by German atheist philosopher Ernst Bloch (1885-1977), who so far as to say that “only a Christian can be a good atheist and only an atheist can be a good Christian” in his book Atheism in Christianity.

Gianni Vattimo, an Italian philosopher, MEP in the European Parliament and gay rights activist has also joined the intellectual party promoting this "Christianity = secular society" thesis:


https://www.iep.utm.edu/vattimo/#SH4b

Vattimo sees Jesus as the instigator of the desacralising weakening that has come to fruition in modernity. This weakening occurs through the exposition of the tendency of religions to be authoritarian and violent, particularly in demanding sacrifice...

"Jesus came into the world precisely to reveal and abolish the nexus between violence and the sacred"​

Most recently, the atheist and Marxist philosopher Slavoj Žižek has put forward yet another iteration of the same basic argument:

It is thus only in post-religious “atheist” radical-emancipatory collectives that we find the proper actualization of the Idea of the Christian collective— the necessary consequence of the “atheistic” nature of Christianity itself.​

—Slavoj Zizek, Less Than Nothing: Hegel and the Shadow of Dialectical Materialism​

It makes me wonder: are these atheist-secular scholars right, after all? Is there something inherent within the Christian worldview that by accident makes it more conducive to atheism and secularism than other religions, as odd as this might appear from a superficial understanding of the faith?

And could this be one factor, among many, in helping to explain the verdict of Pew polling data in America, the largest Western country: that while Christianity is gradually declining into secular "noneism" with every passing generation, minority non-Christian religions are actually growing or retaining their membership (i.e. at least one-third of American Muslims (42%), Hindus (36%), and Buddhists (35%) are under the age of 30)?

 

[Shiranui117]

The recent thread by @Sunstone regarding the decline of religiosity in the West, reminded me of the French atheist historian Marcel Gauchet and his controversial theory that Christianity is “the religion of the end of religion” as put forward in his book The Disenchantment of the World: A Political History of Religion (original French title: Le Désenchantement du monde. Une histoire politique de la religion, Gallimard, Paris, 1985).

The idea that Christianity has played, and will continue to play, a sort of 'midwife' role in the birth of secular societies is not a novel concept.

Indeed, it has been pushed relentlessly by many researchers and intellectuals, beginning with Nietzsche himself. The most exemplary account was given by German atheist philosopher Ernst Bloch (1885-1977), who so far as to say that “only a Christian can be a good atheist and only an atheist can be a good Christian” in his book Atheism in Christianity.

Gianni Vattimo, an Italian philosopher, MEP in the European Parliament and gay rights activist has also joined the intellectual party promoting this "Christianity = secular society" thesis:


https://www.iep.utm.edu/vattimo/#SH4b

Vattimo sees Jesus as the instigator of the desacralising weakening that has come to fruition in modernity. This weakening occurs through the exposition of the tendency of religions to be authoritarian and violent, particularly in demanding sacrifice...

"Jesus came into the world precisely to reveal and abolish the nexus between violence and the sacred"​

Most recently, the atheist and Marxist philosopher Slavoj Žižek has put forward yet another iteration of the same basic argument:

It is thus only in post-religious “atheist” radical-emancipatory collectives that we find the proper actualization of the Idea of the Christian collective— the necessary consequence of the “atheistic” nature of Christianity itself.​

—Slavoj Zizek, Less Than Nothing: Hegel and the Shadow of Dialectical Materialism​

It makes me wonder: are these atheist-secular scholars right, after all? Is there something inherent within the Christian worldview that by accident makes it more conducive to atheism and secularism than other religions, as odd as this might appear from a superficial understanding of the faith?

And could this be one factor, among many, in helping to explain the verdict of Pew polling data in America, the largest Western country: that while Christianity is gradually declining into secular "noneism" with every passing generation, minority non-Christian religions are actually growing or retaining their membership (i.e. at least one-third of American Muslims (42%), Hindus (36%), and Buddhists (35%) are under the age of 30)?

I recall the work of at least one historian who posits that secularism and atheism were more the birth of the Protestant Reformation and of Scholasticism, both of which historically treated God as more of a concept to be studied with the intellect and reasoned about than as a Someone Who can be encountered and Who is "everywhere present and filling all things". Effectively, God has been compartmentalized in the West to the realm of thought alone for centuries now, thanks to the theology of those like Calvin and Zwingli who denied any sacramentality of the physical matter; Catholicism has always held that the physical can be a vehicle for conveying God's grace, a notion which Protestants in the Reformed tradition (Baptists, Anabaptists, low-church Anglicans) have historically rejected out of hand.

I think a good comparison here would be to take a look at Eastern Christian nations, such as Russia, Serbia, Bulgaria, Greece, Romania and Georgia. These are all countries that have retained strong and stable Christian populations, despite heavy state promotion of atheism and demonization of religion during their decades-long Communist eras. Even monasticism still flourishes in these countries, and Russia is building hundreds of new churches a year. Orthodoxy itself has never posited the idea that there is a divide between the spiritual and the material. Both are parts of God's creation, and we can find Him in both, but especially in the material, where He often manifests His grace via water, light, icons, incense, encounters with people, or animals.

 

[joe1776]

The recent thread by @Sunstone regarding the decline of religiosity in the West, reminded me of the French atheist historian Marcel Gauchet and his controversial theory that Christianity is “the religion of the end of religion” as put forward in his book The Disenchantment of the World: A Political History of Religion (original French title: Le Désenchantement du monde. Une histoire politique de la religion, Gallimard, Paris, 1985).

The idea that Christianity has played, and will continue to play, a sort of 'midwife' role in the birth of secular societies is not a novel concept.

Indeed, it has been pushed relentlessly by many researchers and intellectuals, beginning with Nietzsche himself. The most exemplary account was given by German atheist philosopher Ernst Bloch (1885-1977), who so far as to say that “only a Christian can be a good atheist and only an atheist can be a good Christian” in his book Atheism in Christianity.

Gianni Vattimo, an Italian philosopher, MEP in the European Parliament and gay rights activist has also joined the intellectual party promoting this "Christianity = secular society" thesis:


https://www.iep.utm.edu/vattimo/#SH4b

Vattimo sees Jesus as the instigator of the desacralising weakening that has come to fruition in modernity. This weakening occurs through the exposition of the tendency of religions to be authoritarian and violent, particularly in demanding sacrifice...

"Jesus came into the world precisely to reveal and abolish the nexus between violence and the sacred"​

Most recently, the atheist and Marxist philosopher Slavoj Žižek has put forward yet another iteration of the same basic argument:

It is thus only in post-religious “atheist” radical-emancipatory collectives that we find the proper actualization of the Idea of the Christian collective— the necessary consequence of the “atheistic” nature of Christianity itself.​

—Slavoj Zizek, Less Than Nothing: Hegel and the Shadow of Dialectical Materialism​

It makes me wonder: are these atheist-secular scholars right, after all? Is there something inherent within the Christian worldview that by accident makes it more conducive to atheism and secularism than other religions, as odd as this might appear from a superficial understanding of the faith?

And could this be one factor, among many, in helping to explain the verdict of Pew polling data in America, the largest Western country: that while Christianity is gradually declining into secular "noneism" with every passing generation, minority non-Christian religions are actually growing or retaining their membership (i.e. at least one-third of American Muslims (42%), Hindus (36%), and Buddhists (35%) are under the age of 30)?

Very interesting post.

First, let's clarify one minor point. As the Pew data shows, atheism isn't gaining in the USA as much as one would expect from the decline of traditional religion. "Spiritual but non-religious" is a category the Pew people created to cover the fastest growing group.

I think the reasons that Christianity flourished over the ages are now working against it. Those reasons made a strong appeal to naive minds and, with each passing generation, there are fewer naive minds.

The creation of Heaven and Hell was a master stroke. Reward is a powerful motivator. Punishment is equally good. The two together are extremely powerful. Heaven (reward) and Hell (punishment) coerced naive minds to desire faith.

Today, though, the notion of Hell for non-believers is obviously unjust. It's hard to believe in a god who would be so unjust. When Christians try to credit the god they worship with unconditional love, their arguments are head scratchers.

The ideas of Heaven and Hell also made Christians members of an elite group favored by God. This made a strong appeal to the arrogant side of human nature. But that attitude of arrogance is being met with ridicule in the modern world.

Finally, Christians have made a habit of indoctrinating children. Catholics made their first instruction when children turned seven. While this is not immoral because they don't intend harm, the behavior is an attempt to evade the individual's right to make a free will judgment and a tacit admission that their doctrine would not be persuasive to discerning minds.

So, I think these concepts that helped build Christianity are now dragging it down.

 

[Cacotopia]

I think that whenever a religion starts to lose it's following it's more staunch members naturally become more radical. And that the institutions that once held sway over governments and people alike tighten it's grip on that said power that is slowly slipping from it's grasp. But it is that 'white knuckling' that is also a factor in people turning away from the institution itself and either stepping away from religion as a whole or identifying as religious without belonging to a religious institution.

Radical reformation saved Christianity before and I suppose it could again, but I doubt they would be able to make the mad dash of progress up to the forefront of secular and societal norms. From gender equality to gay rights, gay marriage, be accepting of gender binary and fluid people.

I can't explain this properly...but if the churches can be at the same place secular society is in terms of accepting the broad range of human diversity of today it would be a step in the right direction. But I just don't see it ever happening. Religious thought has always lagged well behind the times of the modern era, no matter what the times were, they were always behind.

 

[whirlingmerc]

I think that whenever a religion starts to lose it's following it's more staunch members naturally become more radical. And that the institutions that once held sway over governments and people alike tighten it's grip on that said power that is slowly slipping from it's grasp. But it is that 'white knuckling' that is also a factor in people turning away from the institution itself and either stepping away from religion as a whole or identifying as religious without belonging to a religious institution.

Radical reformation saved Christianity before and I suppose it could again, but I doubt they would be able to make the mad dash of progress up to the forefront of secular and societal norms. From gender equality to gay rights, gay marriage, be accepting of gender binary and fluid people.

I can't explain this properly...but if the churches can be at the same place secular society is in terms of accepting the broad range of human diversity of today it would be a step in the right direction. But I just don't see it ever happening. Religious thought has always lagged well behind the times of the modern era, no matter what the times were, they were always behind.

Christianity by the numbers are increasing significantly in the global south

In the west, liberal expressions are on the decline and conservative on the increase in many ways but it depends what you mean

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...shifting-dramatically/?utm_term=.65b69c7ca54e

"
The religious landscape is particularly changing for the world’s Christians. A century ago, 80 percent lived in North America and Europe, compared with just 40 percent today.

In 1980, more Christians were found in the global South than the North for the first time in 1,000 years. Today, the Christian community in Latin America and Africa, alone, account for 1 billion people.
"

 

[stvdv]

Most recently, the atheist and Marxist philosopher Slavoj Žižek has put forward yet another iteration of the same basic argument:
It is thus only in post-religious “atheist” radical-emancipatory collectives that we find the proper actualization of the Idea of the Christian collective— the necessary consequence of the “atheistic” nature of Christianity itself.
—Slavoj Zizek, Less Than Nothing: Hegel and the Shadow of Dialectical Materialism

It makes me wonder: are these atheist-secular scholars right, after all? Is there something inherent within the Christian worldview that by accident makes it more conducive to atheism and secularism than other religions, as odd as this might appear from a superficial understanding of the faith?

My Master has said "Evangelizing leads to atheism". Which to me is kind of obvious.

 

[David T]

I think that whenever a religion starts to lose it's following it's more staunch members naturally become more radical. And that the institutions that once held sway over governments and people alike tighten it's grip on that said power that is slowly slipping from it's grasp. But it is that 'white knuckling' that is also a factor in people turning away from the institution itself and either stepping away from religion as a whole or identifying as religious without belonging to a religious institution.

Radical reformation saved Christianity before and I suppose it could again, but I doubt they would be able to make the mad dash of progress up to the forefront of secular and societal norms. From gender equality to gay rights, gay marriage, be accepting of gender binary and fluid people.

I can't explain this properly...but if the churches can be at the same place secular society is in terms of accepting the broad range of human diversity of today it would be a step in the right direction. But I just don't see it ever happening. Religious thought has always lagged well behind the times of the modern era, no matter what the times were, they were always behind.

So the now determines the past? All metaphysic reformations including the origon of christianity are rooted in the past as fundemental to the present. Its over time that the reformation moment in christianities case metamorphs into a collection of thoughts theories speculations and beliefs, back into the present determinging the past that it suddenly finds itself lost.

You can see it in christianity clearly. A heretic is executed, he is a heretic in his own time and culture. Roll about 350 years into the future, a religion has formed around him and it now is executing heretics in their own time. What exactly is not clear in their minds at this point?

The verse "in the beginning was the logos the logos was god the logos is god he was with god in the beginning" is neither simple nor perfectly clear. How we see the world either from the past into the present or from the present into the past determines automatically how that section is understood. Christianity today reads that as the present determines the past, very secular, very atheist very silly. I actually watch the variety of responses to such verses they almost all break out the backwards view of present determines past.

 

[David T]

The recent thread by @Sunstone regarding the decline of religiosity in the West, reminded me of the French atheist historian Marcel Gauchet and his controversial theory that Christianity is “the religion of the end of religion” as put forward in his book The Disenchantment of the World: A Political History of Religion (original French title: Le Désenchantement du monde. Une histoire politique de la religion, Gallimard, Paris, 1985).

The idea that Christianity has played, and will continue to play, a sort of 'midwife' role in the birth of secular societies is not a novel concept.

Indeed, it has been pushed relentlessly by many researchers and intellectuals, beginning with Nietzsche himself. The most exemplary account was given by German atheist philosopher Ernst Bloch (1885-1977), who so far as to say that “only a Christian can be a good atheist and only an atheist can be a good Christian” in his book Atheism in Christianity.

Gianni Vattimo, an Italian philosopher, MEP in the European Parliament and gay rights activist has also joined the intellectual party promoting this "Christianity = secular society" thesis:


https://www.iep.utm.edu/vattimo/#SH4b

Vattimo sees Jesus as the instigator of the desacralising weakening that has come to fruition in modernity. This weakening occurs through the exposition of the tendency of religions to be authoritarian and violent, particularly in demanding sacrifice...

"Jesus came into the world precisely to reveal and abolish the nexus between violence and the sacred"​

Most recently, the atheist and Marxist philosopher Slavoj Žižek has put forward yet another iteration of the same basic argument:

It is thus only in post-religious “atheist” radical-emancipatory collectives that we find the proper actualization of the Idea of the Christian collective— the necessary consequence of the “atheistic” nature of Christianity itself.​

—Slavoj Zizek, Less Than Nothing: Hegel and the Shadow of Dialectical Materialism​

It makes me wonder: are these atheist-secular scholars right, after all? Is there something inherent within the Christian worldview that by accident makes it more conducive to atheism and secularism than other religions, as odd as this might appear from a superficial understanding of the faith?

And could this be one factor, among many, in helping to explain the verdict of Pew polling data in America, the largest Western country: that while Christianity is gradually declining into secular "noneism" with every passing generation, minority non-Christian religions are actually growing or retaining their membership (i.e. at least one-third of American Muslims (42%), Hindus (36%), and Buddhists (35%) are under the age of 30)?

Nietzche was bat **** crazy and so was his father.. So if you want to start quoting crazies " i dont believe" and crazies i believe" carl and fredrick are an ideal study group of exactly what is screwy louie with both.

 

[Brickjectivity]

The recent thread by @Sunstone regarding the decline of religiosity in the West, reminded me of the French atheist historian Marcel Gauchet and his controversial theory that Christianity is “the religion of the end of religion” as put forward in his book The Disenchantment of the World: A Political History of Religion (original French title: Le Désenchantement du monde. Une histoire politique de la religion, Gallimard, Paris, 1985).

The idea that Christianity has played, and will continue to play, a sort of 'midwife' role in the birth of secular societies is not a novel concept.

Indeed, it has been pushed relentlessly by many researchers and intellectuals, beginning with Nietzsche himself. The most exemplary account was given by German atheist philosopher Ernst Bloch (1885-1977), who so far as to say that “only a Christian can be a good atheist and only an atheist can be a good Christian” in his book Atheism in Christianity.

Gianni Vattimo, an Italian philosopher, MEP in the European Parliament and gay rights activist has also joined the intellectual party promoting this "Christianity = secular society" thesis:


https://www.iep.utm.edu/vattimo/#SH4b

Vattimo sees Jesus as the instigator of the desacralising weakening that has come to fruition in modernity. This weakening occurs through the exposition of the tendency of religions to be authoritarian and violent, particularly in demanding sacrifice...

"Jesus came into the world precisely to reveal and abolish the nexus between violence and the sacred"​

Most recently, the atheist and Marxist philosopher Slavoj Žižek has put forward yet another iteration of the same basic argument:

It is thus only in post-religious “atheist” radical-emancipatory collectives that we find the proper actualization of the Idea of the Christian collective— the necessary consequence of the “atheistic” nature of Christianity itself.​

—Slavoj Zizek, Less Than Nothing: Hegel and the Shadow of Dialectical Materialism​

It makes me wonder: are these atheist-secular scholars right, after all? Is there something inherent within the Christian worldview that by accident makes it more conducive to atheism and secularism than other religions, as odd as this might appear from a superficial understanding of the faith?

And could this be one factor, among many, in helping to explain the verdict of Pew polling data in America, the largest Western country: that while Christianity is gradually declining into secular "noneism" with every passing generation, minority non-Christian religions are actually growing or retaining their membership (i.e. at least one-third of American Muslims (42%), Hindus (36%), and Buddhists (35%) are under the age of 30)?

"Peace on earth, good will toward men, glory to God in the highest." This is the soul and aim. There is flexibility of interpretation. "God is invisible" is a very refined form of atheism if you will allow that it implies atheism. It allows an atheist to be a Christian, because there is no image, no body, no form. All the atheist really has to believe is that the universe follows a common law throughout, and they are then a monotheist. Then all they have to do is have goodwill towards all people, not consider any person to be the highest authority and live in peace to be in the area of Christianity. These items are enough to be called faith. Reworded they are: Justice, Love, Lawfulness or in fact the full set of the fruits of the spirit. How then is an atheist an evil thing if it can produce the fruits of the spirit? Jesus is quoted to say "Whoever is not against us is for us."

 

[Vouthon]

"Peace on earth, good will toward men, glory to God in the highest." This is the soul and aim. There is flexibility of interpretation. "God is invisible" is a very refined form of atheism if you will allow that it implies atheism. It allows an atheist to be a Christian, because there is no image, no body, no form. All the atheist really has to believe is that the universe follows a common law throughout, and they are then a monotheist. Then all they have to do is have goodwill towards all people, not consider any person to be the highest authority and live in peace to be in the area of Christianity. These items are enough to be called faith. Reworded they are: Justice, Love, Lawfulness or in fact the full set of the fruits of the spirit. How then is an atheist an evil thing if it can produce the fruits of the spirit? Jesus is quoted to say "Whoever is not against us is for us."

Good post! Yes, that latter saying of Jesus (derived from the Gospels of Mark and Luke) is an important reminder to Christians that we must refrain from condemning or ostracising those who do not share our ideas, theology and worship, which would limit the reach of God's Kingdom to those who think as we do.

The Synoptic Jesus, certainly, placed more emphasis on conduct as the gold-standard marking out a true Christian i.e.

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven" ​

and

"The Sheep and the Goats or "the Judgment of the Nations" is a pronouncement of Jesus recorded in chapter 25 of Matthew's Gospel in the New Testament...This parable seems on a natural reading to support the first view, justification by works. The 'sheep' are saved because of the good deeds they have done, independent of any framework of knowledge or belief, or hope of future benefit."

​

 

[metis]

Finally, Christians have made a habit of indoctrinating children. Catholics made their first instruction when children turned seven. While this is not immoral because they don't intend harm, the behavior is an attempt to evade the individual's right to make a free will judgment and a tacit admission that their doctrine would not be persuasive to discerning minds.

That's not really how Catholicism works.

It's more like the Roman traffic cop who waves his arms to direct traffic, with some drivers obeying him, some partially obeying him, and some just blowing him off. But if something goes wrong, the cop is there to help sort things out.

As Catholics, we well know the Church's role is to teach, but we also know that the Church can sometimes be wrong. We also know that we are primarily responsible to ourselves in regards to that which we may believe plus what our actions may be.

I converted back to Catholicism several months ago, and I explained to our priest that I will always have questions because that's my nature (I'm a retired anthropologist), but I can commit myself to the Church and do the best I can to help people both in and out of the Church. And then the priest lowered the standards and let me back in.

 

[metis]

The gospels say that Jesus "taught with authority", as did the apostles, as did the early Church, but that approach doesn't mesh too well with democracy since the latter is not authoritarian by its nature. This leads to a sort of tug-of-war, and some choose to leave the churches that still "teach with authority" for that and sometimes other reasons.

Anyhow, gotta go, so have a most blessed weekend.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

… in America … minority non-Christian religions are actually growing or retaining their membership (i.e. at least one-third of American Muslims (42%), Hindus (36%), and Buddhists (35%) are under the age of 30)?

Actually Muslims are loosing their beliefs in the USA: according to Pew 23% of Muslim immigrants leave their faith.

Christianity in decline has opened up opportunities for conversion to other religions. We have many ex-Christian Hindus on this site; several of the books on Shinto and Chinese religion in my library are by converts; I'm obviously a convert and my downstairs neighbour has become a Buddhist.

 

[joe1776]

That's not really how Catholicism works.

I was born into a Catholic tradition and received my first instruction when I turned seven. I know what the Church taught in my youth and I've followed its changes since I left it.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Christianity in decline has opened up opportunities for conversion to other religions. We have many ex-Christian Hindus on this site; several of the books on Shinto and Chinese religion in my library are by converts; I'm obviously a convert and my downstairs neighbour has become a Buddhist.

Do any of the Hindu religions have a concept of conversion?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

The recent thread by @Sunstone regarding the decline of religiosity in the West,........................
The idea that Christianity has played, and will continue to play, a sort of 'midwife' role in the birth of secular societies is not a novel concept.
It makes me wonder: are these atheist-secular scholars right, after all? Is there something inherent within the Christian worldview that by accident makes it more conducive to atheism and secularism than other religions, as odd as this might appear from a superficial understanding of the faith?

The 'decline of religiosity in the West' to me is Not a surprise because Scripture teaches that 'religious waters' (people) would dry up spiritually. Just having a form of godly devotion but proving false - Matthew 7:21-23.
It is more like the idea 'Christendom' has played. Christendom is apostate Christianity. Mostly name-only Christian.
The 20th chapter of Acts lets us know that once the apostles would be off the scene there would be a false form of Christianity.
As Jesus said, fake ' weed/tares ' Christians would grow together with the genuine ' wheat ' Christians until the Harvest Time, or the soon coming ' Time of Separation ' as found at Matthew 25:31-33,37,40.
So, to me it is more like Christendom's world view, and Not the view from 1st-century Christianity as taught by Jesus.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Christianity in decline has opened up opportunities for conversion to other religions.....................

I find it is Not the 1st-century teachings of Jesus that is in decline, but decline in the teachings of Christendom.
Christendom developed after the first century ended as per Acts of the Apostles 20:29-30.
So, Christendom is just so-called Christian mostly 'in name only'. An apostate form of 1st-century Christianity.
What we are seeing then is the decline of Christendom whose 'religious waters'(people) are drying up spiritually.
There is No decline in the international gospel spreading good news of Matthew 24:14; Acts 1:8 because it has reached vast global proportions as never before in history.
Even so, Christendom will Not collapse on her own, perhaps with a bad economy, the wealth she has amassed can look easy for the political taking over of her once and for all time.

 

[Marcion]

Jesus tried to start a Tantric tradition but he failed. On the ruins of his mission and parts of his teachings the Christians created their ritualistic syncretic religion which lacks a proper system of introspective practices.
Educated intelligent people can no longer accept an irrational belief system that only makes promises for the after-life, therefore Christianity is doomed in the developed world.

But through other spiritual traditions people will gradually return to the path that Jesus tried to start-up in his tragic mission. Atheism cannot satisfy the desire people have for greatness and happiness so this age of socio-spiritual confusion will not last for very much longer.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

The gospels say that Jesus "taught with authority", as did the apostles, as did the early Church, but that approach doesn't mesh too well with democracy since the latter is not authoritarian by its nature. This leads to a sort of tug-of-war, and some choose to leave the churches that still "teach with authority" for that and sometimes other reasons.

Since I find Jesus was a theocrat, then it does Not surprise me that you say such an approach doesn't mesh well with democracy.
Jesus was Not a 'modern-day theocrat' meaning the definition of rule by clergy or rule by clergy class.
Rather, Jesus believed in the theocracy of Daniel 2:44 and taught his followers to spread that at Matthew 24:14.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Jesus tried to start a Tantric tradition but he failed. On the ruins of his mission and parts of his teachings the Christians created their ritualistic syncretic religion which lacks a proper system of introspective practices.
Educated intelligent people can no longer accept an irrational belief system that only makes promises for the after-life, therefore Christianity is doomed in the developed world.
But through other spiritual traditions people will gradually return to the path that Jesus tried to start-up in his tragic mission. Atheism cannot satisfy the desire people have for greatness and happiness so this age of socio-spiritual confusion will not last for very much longer.

I don't see how you can say Jesus failed because exactly as Jesus said at Matthew 24:14; Acts 1:8 what he taught is now taught on a vast global international scale as never before in history.
Even modern technology has made rapid Bible translation possible so that people even in remote areas can have Scripture in their own mother tongue or native languages.

Not the 1st-century teachings of Christ that created syncretism, but the teachings of Christendom (apostate Christianity) did.
Christendom's teachings can't be reconciled with the 1st-century teachings of Christ, aka biblical Christianity.
Christendom is what has tried to blend or mix the 'secular with the sacred' resulting in such religious syncretism.
Christendom just tries to flourish as if it is the old original 1st-century Christianity when it is not.
So, No it is Not 1st-century Christianity that has failed, but rather Christendom that has failed Jesus.