Ah yes - Milbank and Pabst and their pretentious back-to-the-past "radical" "orthodoxy".
Never mind that there is nothing remotely "radical" about their power-and-control-seeking institutionalized ideology.
And whose or which necessarily institutionalized "orthodoxy" are they promoting?
Remembering that all "orthodoxies" were created by those who, in their time and place, had the political power to define what was to be accepted as "orthodox" and therefore simultaneously what was defined as "heretical" too.
They thus had the institutional political power to deal with "heretics" in one way or another.
Furthermore institutional power-and-control-seeking christian-ISM has always been a "heresy"-hunting religion, from the very moment that the multivarious early christian movement was coopted by the Roman State.
"Official" Christianity then became an integral, and even key player, in the Western project to gain institutional power-and-control over all beings, both human and non-human.

But what has ANY of that got to do with the universal, non-sectarian, non-christian Spirit-Breathing Spiritual Way taught and demonstrated by Saint Jesus of Galilee while he was alive. Jesus of course had nothing whatsoever to do with any of the dogmatic nonsense associated with the untimely (unfortunate) murder, and his presumed "resurrection" - which of course never happened.

That having been said the essays featured on this site provide a radically different Illuminated Understanding of the Life & Teaching of Saint Jesus of Galilee. Including a unique esoteric of the "trinity" which is an oft-times promoted (and debated) aspect of christian dogma
http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/EWB/EWB_pp436-459.html#jesusandtheteaching

Perhaps Sells or others who share his viewpoint could point the the time and place in history where that balance Sells talks of has occurred on a big enough scale to be more than a local anomaly and show us how the poor and down trodden were lifted up. A place the church figures with the influence in the system did not cloak themselves in fine robes, mansions and luxury at the expense of others. I'll concede the possibility of isolated pockets where church figures with a strong voice in the public square might have made for a better society but my overall impression is of them being part of the rot.

Plenty wrong with our modern world but in many ways much has been done to change the meaning of poverty and justice in good ways. The worst examples of community and so called leadership seem to be coming from the places where the voices of "believers" are still strong in the public square.

A lack of belief in some deity does not imply a good person or any sense of community but from what I can see a belief in a deity seems to lessen the chances of a person holding to any real values that make life better for others.

R0bert

Peter I think you’re a bit off target when you claim that: “…liberalism is a latecomer that grew out of revolutionary Europe….” We do forget that the institutions of liberalism were well established in Western societies long before the advent of mass participation in the political process, (aka. democracy) which process in itself took a long time to get going. As to the growth or establishment of liberalism one could arguably begin with the signing of Magna Carta in England in 1215.

Also one can consider the writings of the English essayist and philosopher John Locke, in particular the publication in 1689 of the influential essay: “A Letter Concerning Toleration”, which in turn, among other things, is said to have influenced the American Constitution one hundred years later. So by the time you have anything like universal suffrage, Liberalism had encapsulated a set of non-negotiable rights and duties – including freedom of speech, conscience and religion, plus the expansion of individual autonomy and responsibility, and most importantly, the rule of law. It is in this sense that the “removal” of religion from the public to the private sphere was well underway by the time of the French Revolution, a point at which you imply the rot set in.

It is odd Peter when you appear to readily acknowledge that one may “…be aware and receptive to the human realm of the things unseen, of love and pride and error and loss and hope etc. These are not measureable and observable things but they are the things that make our lives possible or impossible.”, and yet at the same time assert: “…that the Church is the factory of the considered, virtuous person who knows the difference between the desires promoted by Capitalism and those needful for true character.”

I reckon either approach is virtuous and the individual is, as always, free to choose.