The Church's Demise

Alan Hirsch, in his book The Forgotten Ways, attributes the decline of the church in the West to the following three forces at work in society:

1. The rise of capitalism and of the free market as the mediator of value
2. The rise of the nation-state as the mediator of protection and provision
3. The rise of science as the mediator of truth and understanding

What do you think about this explanation?
Hirsch goes on to say:
On could hardly now doubt the almost total hegemonic power fo the economy, the state, and science in our lives. And the upshot is that these are precisely the places where the vast majority of people find their direction and meaning. And as we engage the twenty-first century, the most dominant force of all three --the one that pervades our lives totally--is that of global economy and the market...It has often been noted that in the postmodern condition we can consume new identities like new clothes...In this cultural situation everything, even personal identiy adn religious meaning, becomes a comodity that we can now trade in, depending on the latest fads, and by consuming the latest products--The Forgotten Ways p. 109.
If this is true, how should Christians regard "Capitalism" and "Free Market Economies"? Is there such a thing as "Benevolent Capitalism"? Can we have a "benevolent capitalism" with the belief in total depravity? Can the church begin to influence people for a "benevolent capitalism" or will it always sucomb to the darker-side of free markets and consumerism?
Just a few questions to chew on.

Which "Son of David" Does the Church Represent

"When the suffering, the sick, and the blind call out "Son of David," its as
much a question as it is a cry. Which kind of Son fo David are you,
Jesus?" The kind who maintains jsutice and righteousness, or the kind who
builds military bases?"--Rob Bell in Jesus Wants to Save Christians p.
79.

So my friend Chris copied a portion of Charle's Murray's In Pursuit of Happiness, which makes the case that the Govt. took over the churches responsibility to help the poor and needy and as a result, the church doesn't get or spend the money it once did to to help. See the following link: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/note.php?note_id=214903110157&ref=mf

My questions are these:

1. Was the church too much a part of the state and the state too much a part of the church, so govt. and church activities were combined?

2. Is the religous right too much (or has been too much) a part of the state--so the church is seen as "building military bases"--Being a Solomon instead of Jesus?

3.  Is the religous left too much (or has been too much) a part of the state?

4. Is the church seen as worthless in the world's eyes because when it was a "part of the state" it gave its responsibility to the state--so the state gets credit for helping the poor and needy, doesn't do it well, but is at least seen as doing something and the church is seen as doing nothing?

5. Is the church seen as worthless in the world's eyes because it is percieved as building and supporting the building of "military bases"?

6. How can the church lament it percieved condition and envision a new and better tomorrow--where it makes a difference for Christ? See my blog on Hannah.