Will Christianity Ever Become Mythologized?

Today, there are those who believe Christianity is a myth, as they consider all religions to be. Usually, these people give myth a negative connotation. This would seem to be the view of a large population of the scientific community or the view of many atheists, but this does not seem to be exactly what the question is asking.

The mythologization of a religion seems to be more about the living/dead dichotomy. Today, Christianity is very much a living religion, whereas Greek and Roman religion is for all intents and purposes a dead religion. The vast majority of people have no problem classifying the content of these religions as myths along with the content of the Egyptian and Sumerian religions.

It is true that historically religions have come and gone, although the exact reasons for this lifespan is debatable. Based on historical evidence alone, one might be justified in asserting that Christianity will be seen as a myth to future generations, and one is hard pressed when trying to argue against this view. But we must keep in mind that, although we human beings strive as we might for future certainty, even this is not certain.

Christianity does have a traceable historical evolution, which is far more visible than, for instance, the Greek and Roman religion. Almost form its inception it has been textualized, and for two thousand years theologians have shaped its progress. What we learn from this evolutionary development is that Christianity is very flexible over historical marches of time, although to people during their own short lives this might seem to be otherwise. The facts of this textualization and evolution seem to give some hope to those who reject to the view that Christianity will ever become mythologized.

Thus, in a way, the technological basis of the text and of new forms of media today can help keep Christianity going, or on the other hand could lead to its downfall with the spread of views against it. This is the essential hope of many scientists and those feeding on the spirit of the Enlightenment. It is even a hope of those critical of the Enlightenment project, who deem the Enlightenment an ultimate failure, which has gained control of power relations and has solidified, but more on the role of power, and especially the role of state power, will come later.

Another historical view to consider is the organic view of culture. On this view, cultures are born, grow, mature and decline. Oswald Spengler came up with a view of this nature. Using a mixture of his knowledge of the path of classical civilization, Spengler thought he had solved the riddle of history, although others accuse Spengler of projecting the forms of classical civilization and the forms of Western civilization onto all world cultures. For Spengler, religion was one cultural form among others such as art, science, mathematics, etc..

Interestingly enough, Spengler did not hold to the ideas of a continuous Western civilization stretching from classical civilization up until modern times. Instead, Spengler posited a discontinuity after the death of Classical civilization and the rise of modern Western civilization out of the Dark ages. During the early Roman Empire the seeds and cultural forms of another culture, the Arabian Magian culture, as he called it, was arising, although distorted by the Roman civilization of the time. Early Christianity emerged as the early religious form of this culture, although it later would be Islam. For Spengler, the rise of Islam was the Magian culture's reformation. An interesting little fact is that Spengler considered the Pantheon as the first Mosque.

Spengler's name for modern Western civilization was the Faustian culture. It is this culture that eventually dominated the globe and spread Christianity to the world, being more expansive than the Magian, Islamic culture, which spread Islam out of Arabia, into the Middle East, across North Africa and over the Straights of Gibraltar into Spain and even parts of Southern France. Of note also is that this culture also spread into other parts of Africa, Persia, the middle Asia under Russia, into modern day Pakistan and down through Southeast Asia. Islam would also set hold to Cicely, parts of Italy, the Byzantine Empire, down into the Balkans and even knocked at the gates of Vienna. The Faustian culture, which did launch the Crusades, had a precarious existence. The point this all leads to now is the role the ruling powers have played in the shaping of the world religious mosaic.

Ruling powers definitely have played a momentous role in determining the religious mosaic we see in the world today. The Western culture conquered a large area of the world, specifically North America, and brought its religion, Christianity, along with it, this being what people do. In the past the state supported religion of Rome was pagan and then later became Christian. The Christian population grew substantially after this conversion. So-called barbarian kings have a notorious reputation for converting, requiring all of their subjects to convert also, and then imposing this religion on any newly conquered subjects as a means of solidifying their newfound power. The Khazars were a tribe that converted to Judaism based on its ruler's choice. More recently, the German princes of the late 16th and early 17th centuries had a choice between Lutheranism and Catholicism to impose on their subjects, and England went chaotically insane with its constant shifts between Catholicism, Anglicanism and a short stint of Puritanism during the Protectorate of Cromwell.

All the above should not lead one to think that religion is totally an instrument of the powerful or that the powerful do not use other means or emerge in other ways. Individuals have a choice these days and had made choices in the past to be religious or challenge their superiors. We can points to Wyclife, Hus and Reformers like Luther on religious grounds. The powers of the state alone cannot keep Christianity from evolving or becoming a myth. The view that people are only religious because others tell them to be or that the state is actively keeping them in place today is highly disrespectful and elitist, but what else should we suspect from out of touch scientists, philosophers and other academics who treat the common religious person like the plague? This discussion leads to us to consider the new Christian mythologizing power structure that is the scientific enterprise and the American university system. These two are certainly not controlled by the Christian elements of the state or society.

Scientists are quite hostile to Christianity and so too are many other types of academics. They see it as essential that education eliminates what is considered to be irrational, based on false information, and also what questions their authority. It is not true that free thinkers are what they want. Their idea of free thinkers are those who accept their fundamental principles, the views of the scientific authority or Marxist writings, etc., even unthinkingly, as this is basically how people accept science these days in many ways. At least the same phenomenon found among Christians is also found in this contemporary bastion of Truth.

Philosophers, literary intellectuals and social scientists these days are religiously committed to random social movements. In many ways, the value that people once found in the religious community is found in the political communities of today. Political movements of the left, in particular, are especially infused with religious fervor, although they protest this characterization and believe that they are somehow different from those poor bitter, right wing, fundamentalist Christian, conservative, fascist, Nazi, xenophobic, racist, homophobic, sexist, "insert derogatory characterization here" nut jobs. Though, who can honestly deny that people reacted to Obama as if he were a savior god?

The current college environment in America is one of left-leaning, anti-Christian, and anti-God believing intellectuals. It is one that silences the speech of those who might have positive views on Christianity, or at least have some kind of belief in God, although minority religion gods are sometimes acceptable. These people are uncomfortable with someone who mentions God and just so happens to really believe it. We find the old "you're closed minded if you do not believe what I believe" trick being played and "you're an absolutist," even though every closing is simultaneously an opening, and as James says "we are all absolutists by instinct."

This has been a long detour, but it is important to the assessing of whether Christianity will become mythologized or not. The cultural Zeitgeist is one of a civilization in its last days in the West, although Christianity has emerged in other forms in Africa and Asia where it may continue to be a live religion. If Europe is any indication of what is to come in America, then Christianity will certainly decline further. Now, it is also true that some liberals are changing a few doctrines of Christianity and trying to still remain Christian. This is where the adaptationist aspect comes in. In general, the population of the West is changing as well, with low birth rates, rising immigration and births of non-Westerners. This will further reduce the percentage of Christians in the world. At the same time, Asian religions and New Age Spirituality are gaining ground, with odd movements like Scientology. Overall, yes, a new Dark Age is coming, but probably not anytime in the near future. Christianity will remain for some generations to come free from the total mythologization that does seem to eventually lie somewhere in the future.