The Religious Crisis of the 1960s Illustrated Edition

It is refreshing that Prof. Mcleod on p. 12 of The Religious Crisis of the 1960s declares that as between the more religious and more secular sides of the crisis, he inclines to the more liberal, 'reforming' side. His bias only leaks out occasionally. It is those who profess neutrality most loudly who are usually the most biased, when they are so convinced that their position is the common sense neutral position, that they think anyone who dares to disagree with them are the eccentric ones. I write from the starboard side, while appreciating the many good points of the more leeward.the basic thesis of the book is that some scholars emphasize the A long-term causes of the religious crisis of the 1960's, while others emphasize the B, more current, proximate causes, and that McLeod diplomatically tries to split the difference. I favor the A explanation, because the long term causes called secularization, modernization processes are also the cause of the B explanation, so in effect we have 2 A explanations. The longer term explanation mostly affected the elite intelligentia, but that ideology trickles down to 'the street.' if we have any doubt about that, think of the small band surrounding Jesus, and how that movement 'conquered' most of the Western world, and Karl Marx scribbling in the British Museum, whose esoteric thoughts again dominated much of the 20th century.McLeod proceeds by a combination of chronological and themed chapters. However, one major beef i had was that he repeatedly asked if the crisis of the '60's constituted the "end of Christendom." Writing from the more religious end of the spectrum, i think it is obvious that Christendom ended centuries ago. Christendom most properly refers to 13th century Christianity and before. That culture exploded with the Protestant Reformation, and was finished off by the enlightenment-inspired french revolution. McLeod refers to the more recent 'Christendom' of the 1940's and '50's, but that was only a blip on the screen of a constant decline in the practice of the Christian faith. Secularism, like termites, had eaten away the ship of Christianity, so it was only a matter of time and circumstance that the ship would founder, though never completely in the eyes of the faith in the Church as founded by Christ.Another problem i had with this book is that, as virtually every book i have ever read on secularism, it is written from without rather from within its subject. That is, it continues the tradition of treating religion as if it is some esoteric bug from Mars, whereas the vast majority of the people of the world are religious, and only the minority in western europe and bi-coastal USA are secularists. Perhaps that is mandatory from the 'scientific' nature of history or sociology. The essence of Christianity is a personal savior/friend relationship with Jesus Christ, not merely the alleged controlling hierarchy, and it is a wonder to me that anyone who has experienced that loving relationship to his/her Creator can give it up so easily due to relatively superficial reasons.All in all, though, this was an enjoyable and informative book, especially for us old-timers who survived the '60's.

ok

I bought this as a class-required textbook for university. I had a limited knowledge of religious and secular history prior to taking the course, and I learned a lot from this book. The reading can be somewhat dull at times, though.

I took a course last year on theories of change in the church, ie. why people aren't going to church anymore. The prof took what, in his opinion, the best twelve books on the topic and we spent the semester looking through them and applying them to our (Canadian, Presbyterian) context. This field is MASSIVE. Everyone has a theory. Some are good and some are bad. Many are context specific yet applied to a country, continent, or Western world. What I mean to say is that many are quite useless. Of the theories we read, which I also thought were quite good, this one stuck out from the rest. There were two reasons for this. First, many of the other theorist focused on one specific issue but ignored other cultural goings on. This book took a cumulative approach and looked at all the cultural things that collided in the 60's. Secondly, this was the only one that truly rang true in my experience. The other books had good points but it was obvious that they were missing other points. This one resonated. I didn't give it five stars because while it sort of addresses Canada it is really a book about Great Britain. There is not a lot about the Canadian context so it is well worth reading but still not about us.

A good read