This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Love Thy Neighbor Unless They're in the Outgroup
I’m told the denomination my family has been a part of for generations is “Missionary Oriented.” We support and fund full-time professional missionaries. Anyone who’s been in it for a few generations seems to know someone - if not be related to - a missionary who served in Swazila - oops, sorry - Eswatini or more recently Papua New Guinea, or PNG as the missionary kids call it.
Twenty-odd years ago I took a world religions course that had a requirement to visit other religious services. One week we went to a Hindu temple. A few of us stood in the back and observed while the vast majority of my fellow students danced and chanted in front of literal idols. The next class, one of the students who had stood with me in the backs asked how we could not feel absolute sorrow for the Hindu children being led astray in that environment. The professor berated him for being closed-minded. The man stood up and walked out of class and never came back.
The other day I had dinner with a different man who came up a few years after me. He went to seminary, took a church in a small rural community, and the Red Tribe scalped him. If he still identifies as Christian it’s only nominally: “When my faith was strongest God abandoned me.”
Then there’s this story from NPR: A queer Methodist minister didn't feel safe at an Idaho hospital; their conference won't return to Boise next year. I have always judged the United Methodist Church as a Christian denomination, but I never felt real contempt for them until I saw this kind of cowardice. Mary Moffat Livingstone died of disease at 41. Damien De Veuster’s flesh literally rotted off his living body. Countless others suffered and died in pursuit of their faith. These United Methodist clergy will not go to Idaho because of microaggressions.
I have less contempt for the actual heresies of the progressive theologians inside my own denomination than I do for the cowardly Motte and Bailey they played for decades. They helped destroy the pastoral pipeline. Modernity did most of the grinding, but those worms didn’t help.
All these bleeding hearts with endless empathy for the “fargroup” cannot stand to be near their actual neighbor. My denomination trains people to go into some of the most culturally distant places on earth, yet it could not prepare a young man to minister in the culture of rural Nebraska.
This pattern has been covered before in the classic I Can Tolerate Anything Except The Outgroup.
For the first time in my life I look forward to going to church. Per capita, it may have the most influential and connected congregation in the denomination, including several theologians and family members of people at the highest levels of the church hierarchy. The pastor is Blue Tribe, but that’s not surprising as that’s the pipeline. The leadership of the whole denomination is Blue Tribe. And it’s worked out very well for my pastor, as he probably also pastors one of the most Blue Tribe churches in the denomination.
My denomination does not seem lost to me. Despite being Blue Tribe and bamboozled for decades by the Mottes of the progressives, the church has now stripped multiple heretical theologians of their ordinations. As a true progressive in my congregation discusses if we really need Paul, my Blue Tribe pastor politely says, “Sorry, we settled that one a long time ago.”
So I sit here enjoying my pastor’s deep sermons and going to small group at the house of one of the denomination’s theologians in the cool part of town, and I wonder if I am a detestable cowardly worm. I have harbored plenty of ill will toward the progressives - what they have done to Christianity and to the church my family has been part of for generations. It has probably crossed into hatred. Still, I keep mulling a question: is there any more convenient mission field than the outgroup? Paul says not to associate with any so-called brother who is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler… “Remove the wicked man from among yourselves.” I’m not sure that applies to disagreements over refugees and welfare.
My denomination, like many, is shrinking in the developed world. I am sentimental, I do not want it to schism and die, or just fade away. Maybe I can at least slow the fading if I can help mend some of the tears.
The Culture War is so toxic because everyone is a theocrat. An old now defrocked classmate of mine rails to his hundreds of thousands of followers about the dangers “CHRISTIAN NATIONALISM!” while preaching the enforcement of his own version of Christian morality with the dog-whistle: "Jesus says love thy neighbor." By which he means state-enforced welfare and socialism.
War is violence; we tag “culture” onto “war” to differentiate it from literal war, but the reality is we’re still trying to wield violence at arm's length. What if they gave a culture war and no one came? You can love your neighbor by actually helping them yourself. You can persuade, organize, and gather as many people as you want to voluntarily sacrifice their own time and resources for the vulnerable.
But now I’m just preaching my own political philosophy as if it were the moral one… is it my idol?
This post motivated by me planning on grabbing coffee with my pastor and chatting with him as he is taking on a bigger roll in the church
Hosting a conference isn’t missionary work. They’re not shirking a duty to their flock or their fellow man by hosting it in Portland or wherever.
Your apostate acquaintance is a different story. Are you suggesting that the UMC ethos was responsible for leaving him unprepared?
I grew up as a casual Methodist. I can’t say I miss it. Perhaps they really failed to inculcate the fear of God.
Extraordinary.
I’m not sure what you mean.
I think moving the conference because their feelings were hurt is lame. I also think it’s orthogonal to the missionary spirit, in which immortal souls are supposedly at stake.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm not UMC; I've quipped for some time that instead of trying to turn our denomination into the UMC, the heretics should just go be United Methodists... which some did when they had their credentials stripped.
It's of course multi-factorial, but yes: I would assert that the Blue Tribe ethos curated in the last 30 years within the pastoral pipeline contributed to his inability to function in a Red Tribe environment.
Does the UMC even materially believe in hell anymore?
My experience is that UMC pastors didn't believe in hell thirty or more years ago, but I think it varied by region before the split with the GMC.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think that depends on details we’re not privy to. Is anything he’s promoting sinful, or is it simply imprudent? Is he presenting his views on these policies as God’s revealed will, speaking where God hasn’t spoken, or is he honest that they are his attempt to apply Christian principles however imperfectly?
But honestly that’s not where I’d start. Blue tribe alignment isn’t the most important question, but it is often related to more important questions. So I’d move past the tribal question and ask those. It matters whether you’re dealing with Harry Emerson Fosdick or Tim Keller.
More options
Context Copy link
"Everybody is theocrat" is something that many people only recently realized. Everybody knows that politics is downstream of culture, but culture is downstream of of theology. If it will not be a Christian theology that is going to be informing the culture, then it will be something else. There is no "separation of state and religion", all policies are based on morality and ideology of decision makers. Everybody was culture warrior even before, even if they did not think it was so. They were like fish that were not aware of the water they swim in. Your regular grandma did not read Augustine, she probably could not formulate elaborate theological arguments, but she knew what is a man a woman or what is marriage based on age old culture influenced by specific ethos. Not in her wildest dreams did she imagine that this could ever become a question, nobody was prepared to defend such a basic thing. Not anymore, people are no longer seeped in the same water and we see this interaction real time - at home, at work and also in church.
However there is a huge shift even with your friend. No matter what his supposedly heretic theology is, he can just go out there and say that whatever policy he prefers is purely because Christians like him want it. This claim itself fries brain of many secular people - no, there is no need to couche this argument in some secular language that by itself is seeped in utilitarianism or harm reductionism or some other type of moral philosophy. No, my Christian sect wants this and we want it because it is our moral preference. It is the only justification (in scripture, tradition or whatever) that is fully sufficient for us to pursue this specific policy.
By the way the genie is already out of the bottle even on religious front - even discounting the fact that progressives moved the needle for society to accept their religious doctrine, such as let's say that a man is a woman as state policy. This is however more visible as they embraced Muslims into their coalition. For example schools should have halal food. Not because it is good for environment or that it is cheap or anything like that. Our Muslim voters want it, and that is why we will deliver it. It is purely formed by their preference informed by their religion and no other tortured secular justification needs to be done anymore. But this was always so, we only pretended that these utilitarian justifications were morally and theologically neutral, as if history ended and secularists were just independent arbiters in safari full of religious animals. This veneer was already broken, especially by progressives who were able to smuggle increasingly insane moral prescriptions under secularist or "liberal" framework. This only shows that secularists have no better justification for "good" or "bad" policy than any other group, because what is good and bad is subject to moral philosophy and theology. Secular liberalism, intersectional progressivism, Christian socialism, political Islam - it is all just ideologies based on specific moral and theological framework that fight for influence and power.
Only if you have an overly broad definition of theology and religion. I know many people on the right like to categorize Wokeism as a theological/religious movement but then they immediately balk when you ask what base theology did Wokeism form from. So either every collective philosophical movement really just tickles the religious part of the human mind and is consequently a "theology", or you have a much stricter definition of "theology" and then no, not everyone is a theocrat.
Wokeism = Secular Christianity. Scoop out the Holy trinity and you get the logical conclusion of championing the meek, the downtrodden, the oppressed.
I'm still pretty doubtful that if one examines the continental->critical philosophy pipeline that developed into wokeism, one would find a pool of Christian theologians doing Christian stuff, even if heretical.
There are still plenty of non-trinitarians, and they aren't the ones who created wokeism, either. You have to go full atheism first. At every step of the development of wokeism, it's people who went full atheism first. As The Rightful Caliph observed later in the process:
I suppose one could try to argue that it's impossible for an atheist sect to have a hamartiology, but I think it would require argument for why Scott is wrong.
Do you really think that if one scratches the likes of Marx, Gramsci, Adorno, Marcuse, Derrida, Foucault, etc., one primarily finds a bunch of Christians doing Christian stuff? Nah, they thoroughly rejected any sort of god-based anything, went full atheism, and then built an atheism-based epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, and politics. They weren't Christians doing Christian stuff and deciding to just scoop out the trinity and keep what remains. It's incredibly different on almost every level, down to the base. It seems that there's maybe one kinda similarity if you squint really really hard, but even that has a totally different basis and totally different implications.
The better phrase I should have used was "scoop out Christian Metaphysics"
I think in order for you to make the argument that none of the people in that list were ever influenced at their core by any Christian morality, Christian Theology or Christian hamartiology, you'd have to put forth the idea that tabula rasa exists into adulthood. That your mind, your beliefs, your values are entirely your own. You tread un-walked ground and nothing of the culture that you developed, grew, learned in steeped into your core. I guess it's basically a soft cultural determinism view. Your beliefs are downstream of your societies culture, your societies culture is downstream of the theology. Thus your entire core moral system operates from a distinctly Christian lens. Rejection, acceptance, mutation, convergence, how ever you change, doesn't really matter, your base subset is the core theology of your society. In the west that is overridingly Christian.
I'd be curious to see if atheism that developed from a non-western society has similar moral systems as that of a western-developed atheism. However I'm not sure one exists. Christianity is such a universalist religion, while at the same time it suffers apostates, meaning you can stop believing and go hard in that, and still be allowed to live. I'd postulate that non-universalist religions don't inspire such aggressive rejection, and the other universalists like Islam don't suffer apostates.
I don't think that was the matter in question. The way you had originally put it was, "what base theology did Wokeism form from"? This is quite the shift of goalposts.
If this is the test for the original question, then don't we have to conclude that your own particular sect of atheism also formed from the base theology of Christianity? Or did you uniquely possess tabula rasa into adulthood in a world otherwise full of mere mortals? It's making the question meaningless. Certainly not about theological development.
Maybe I'm not using the right words. I see it as the same thing. It's essentially an idea of cultural determinism. If Christian Morality is the root soil, then really any plant that grows out of it is going to be suffused with it. Either rebelling against it intrinsically or co-opting some of it's values. A truly foreign morality system would not even consider the Christian values a topic of discussion. It's like the saying goes, the opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference.
Absolutely, I'd say my moral system is culturally Christian. I, as a westerner, was raised to be guilt not shame oriented, I believe in noblesse oblige, the basic dignity of all man, following my conscience against civil authorities, that intentions matter morally, etc.
Though to be clear, I am an agnostic theist, not an atheist.
The original poster was arguing that culture is downstream of theology, that morality is downstream of theology. If so, then theological development is by definition, in the discussion.
I think this would likely imply that wokeism is Christian... and anti-wokeism is Christian. Communism is Christian and libertarianism is Christian, and I guess socialism and other points in between are all Christian. Fascism is Christian and anti-fascism is Christian. Monarchism is Christian and republicanism (classical) is Christian. And on and on. Is this right?
Wokeism - Yes
Anti-Wokeism - Yes: Though I would suggest that Anti-Wokeism isn't really a belief system. Adversity to Wokeism derives from competing political belief systems, within the Christian Memeplex
Communism - Yes
Libertarianism - Yes
Fascism - No, Fascism is distinctly trying to return to pre-Christian Germanic pagan morality
Anti-Fascism - Yes: most major rejections of Fascism are on strongly Christian moral grounds
Monarchism - Depends: Believe it or not Monarchs and other forms of Autocracy are not solely the purview of the Western world. Taking that view, is arrogantly Euro-centric.
Republicanism - Yes
Problem is you just listed mostly all Western political systems or political thoughts. For you to then make the argument that if all of these are Christian derived it is meaningless, is special pleading because you only listed things that would be considered in the class of Christian-derived. If I just listed various breeds of dogs and then claimed the classification of "Canine" is pointless and ubiquitous I would have made your same argument.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I will not balk, it is a Hegelian "religion", same as OG Marxism etc, which in turn was informed by other religions and traditions such as Christianity, Hermeticism, enlightenment philosophy etc. They developed their own philosophical system answering question for instance of ontology (what is a man), sociology (how should society organize itself) etc. And they do not even deny it, they have a process for it inside their own religious tradition - Hegelian dialectic. Just one example, the concept of abolish has Hegelian roots, it is the concept of aufheben - it is to resolve the contradiction by dissolving it in higher truth.
There are many such words, even the word oppression is based on Hegelian Master-Slave (or more precise Lordship-Bondage) framework developed in his Phenomenology of Spirit way back in 1807. It is interesting because to explain this concept, Hegel framed it as clash of Will where the weaker will submits to the stronger one, thus forging the relationship. He introduced a new form of social and historical will as result of clash for power, which is quite distinct to let's say Augustinian concept of free will as a gift from God. There are stark differences in theology of philosophical systems that borrow from different traditions.
The same for words like alienation or consciousness in a sense of let's say class consciousness or false consciousness. These are religiously supercharged terms, talking about false consciousness requires you to accept the whole baggage in this religious system and its theology, it is completely different meaning from regular usage of let's say falling unconscious after hitting your head.
Just for instance look at the topic of "human rights". What are they, how they come to be, who has authority to arbitrate between them in terms of hierarchy, how do we amend or suspend or cancel them. These are all highly metaphysical questions for which there is no simple answer.
The very fact that they refuse to categorize it as a religion is part of the culture war, they want to posit their religious dogma and doctrine informing how law and morality is enforced as some "universal" system outside of any critique. They presuppose that their religion is correct and invite you to only discuss the issue on their own terms.
More options
Context Copy link
I'm easily willing to bite that bullet, wokeism is Calvinism. And both of them have no place as being the US state religion.
I would like it if wokeism was labelled as a state religion. Someone would be doing everyone a massive favor if they went through the process of getting it recognized as a religion.
Easy agree, but as far as I know you aren't a religious poster on TheMotte who wants to separate the two so there is no tractable fault, or comparison between the too. Nor have you made claims that everything good about The West is because of Christian Theology (Not that I remember if the OP has, but Christian Maximalists on TheMotte have made this claim repeatedly).
I'd like Christians to stop pretending Wokeism is not their child and not following similar behavioral patterns as it's memetic ancestors.
I do not think anybody is pretending, for instance I as a Catholic can say that traditional Satanists who believe in existence of demonic entity of Satan are "children of Christianity" in a very narrow sense that they probably could not exist without Christianity and its system. I can even accept Wokeism as a religion that subverts Christianity - heck, they literally celebrate the most heinous mortal sin of pride connected to sexual depravity. Many Christians see it as a work of The Enemy and indirect proof of their own faith.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This isn't true, though. Wokeism has a lot of similar principles, but it also attaches to it its own set of faith-based claims about reality. That's what makes so many people call it a religion (including myself, as far back as 2015 back when it was just called "social justice" - though, quite honestly, this should have been obvious even as far back as the late 00s, by my estimation), rather than merely an ideology. Its core tenets rely irreducibly on faith to support claims about how certain individuals are oppressed by other individuals in society.
I probably should rephrase that Wokeism isn't the same thing as Christianity. Wokeism is a genealogical descendant of Western Christianity. It's core theological morality is very Christian in nature. In a way that cannot be said of other religions even other Abrahamic religions. The concept of Original Sin, The Confession, Repentance, The emphasis of the sanctity of the meek, it's universalism, etc. Christian slave morality is a direct ancestor of identity-based oppression morality. There is a distinct status inversion to Christianity vs the older European Pagan religions, and the Eastern religions. Core Christian symbolism is literally God suffering on the cross and being holy for that sacrifice. The apparently humiliated and defeated victim can possess supreme moral status, while worldly authorities can be radically mistaken about who is righteous. Now the structural oppressor–oppressed components are substantially Marxian in nature, but breed that belief system with other religions and you would not co-evolve to Wokeism. The Eastern religions are easy to ablate out. Islam, sharing many moral beliefs with Christianity still does not contain the moral primitive of original sin nor does it's central sacred narrative place God himself as the humiliated, tortured, and executed victim.
A good chunk of those can be found in pagan religions, though.
Let's take Communism: capital is the original sin, confession/repentance is done through continual revolution, the meek are the workers, Comintern are the missionaries, etc.
Woke, same thing: ability is the original sin, confession/repentance is done through continual humiliation, the meek are the disabled, USAID are the missionaries, etc.
So while I do think it presses the same moral buttons as Christianity (or perhaps more relevantly, Islam) does/did in the average follower (which is what I think people actually mean when they say it's a religion), I don't think it's actually a proper descendant.
Uhhh, I'd need to see serious evidence for that kind of assertion.
These are possible to find individually in pagan religions but not really all together in this package. Nolan just got asked this question by a Chinese Classics Professor, because Homeric Greeks don't really have the Christian concept of Atonement that pervaded, and was even a core theme, of his new movie. The Greeks saw the gods as beings, you offended them and you made amends much like you would if you offended your king. It's not repentance. Germanic/Norse Paganism, is almost the opposite in that vengeance for slights/wrongs was the moral basis. I feel like I could dig more and more, hence why I think you need evidence for this assertion, because nothing I can uncover even suggests this is close to the truth.
This is uniquely Christian, not even Judaism or Islam really hold to the conception of original sin. Adam sinned yes, but the whole of humanity does not bear the burden of his sin in either of those two religions. To define Original Sin, it is something like Primordial Transgression + Inherited Human condition = Inherent Moral Fault
Going down the list:
The concept of Original Sin is about as OG Christian as it can get. I'd go so far as to say that any ideology that borrows the concept, that developed in the west IS borrowing Christian Theology. So yes Communism and Wokeism, tightly match to Christianity. But if the genealogy of Wokeism is Christianity + Marxism, and 1848 Germany was still deeply religious, when Marx wrote Das Capital, then it stands to reason that Marxism and its descendants are also descendants of Western Christianity minus the Christian Metaphysics. After all Marx was culturally Christian. It's essentially Western Christian Theology all the way down.
There are numerous pre-Christian religions/theologies, that developed outside if Christianity (e.g. in Americas) that share the Original/Ancestral sin framework. For that, the main two attributes of the original sin is as follows:
Here, Buddhism is a direct comparison. The universe is orderly and good, while human is born broken often ridden with karmic debt. The Pythagoreans had similar concepts as do Hindus with doctrine of Ṛṇa or Popol Vuh of Mayans. Of course there are quite an important details that completely subvert the Christian story, but so does Progressive religion.
Progressives believe in subverted story of original sin - individuals are born as perfect innocent tabula rasa individuals, it is the world that is evil and poisons them through systems of oppression into various sins such as racism etc. You have to become woke to these sinful poisonous systems out there, and do the work to perfect yourself and the world in order to build eschatological progressive heaven on Earth in form of ultimate Social Justice, thus liberating future perfect newborn beings from these negative influences. Progressive hamartiology has more overlap with let's say Gnostic view of Original Sin as opposed to mainstream Christianity - and it is not a coincidence.
You are missing a middle bullet point: Humanity inherits the guilt of their ancestor Adam. A human is born broken BECAUSE of Adam. Also your last bullet is subtly wrong too, it's not that "Humans must navigate this fact" Humans must actively seek redemption and grace. Some googling tells me this is actual a Western Christian vs Orthodox Christian disagreement in the view of OG sin.
This is a very christianized interpretation. Buddhism doesn't view the world as good or bad. It teaches that the conventional world (samsara) is characterized by impermanence (anicca) and dissatisfaction or suffering (dukkha), driven by ignorance and craving, rather than being a moral judgment of the world as good or evil. Karma likewise is not inherited guilt of humanity as a whole but the cosmic debt of your past lives. In essence, Buddhism has no primordial human transgression and carries no inherited ancestral guilt.
I can look up those other too later, but considering the loss of that middle bullet around inherited guilt, I'm guessing the distinction comes down to that. You have an incorrect definition of Western Christianities Original Sin.
Incorrect partially, the race you are born to gives you your sinful status at birth. Being born white means you inherit the racial sins of your ancestors and must seek redemption through atonement in the woke belief system.
The rest of the description I agree with. If you can convince me that the OG sin is more your line than mine, I could be swayed to view Progressive belief systems as less connected to Christian Theology.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yes. It does rely heavily on unproven claims and implications such as all differences in crime sanctions arising from police forces who simply hate dark skin, etc.
It also wants you to label huge groups as 'oppressors' with a very broad brush and claims that the individuals inside those groups cannot be legitimate victims, so feel free to tread on them. Jesus wouldn't approve of group identity based discrimination and revanchism.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Most Motteposters grandmothers will be of the Silent Generation, which is the generation that effectively invented modern divorce. Your regular grandma grew up in a society where marriage was for life, but participated in the process (1/4-1/3 of the time by frivorcing her husband herself, but in almost every case by treating her contemporaries who did so as respectable women making a praiseworthy life choice) of making it for as long as both members of the couple still feel like it. Almost nobody complained - and in particular the social conservatives who should have done mostly didn't. (Reagan signed no-fault divorce into law as governor of California).
If your grandma actually did something to preserve the age-old view of marriage, then she was an outlier, not a regular grandma.
Evangelical Conservatives apparently did have some qualms about Reagan; I recall my youth pastor talking about this in the 90's, that supporting a man who divorced his first wife, and signed no-fault into law, was a hard pill to swallow, only done after "significant prayer" (i.e. realizing that there were no better options). I myself was way too young to have any first-hand experience; I was barely a toddler when he moved into the White House, and spent his administration watching thinly-veiled advertisements for toys passed off as cartoons (that his own admin changed the rules on to allow!), but he really wasn't a Culture Warrior, and not much of a social conservative, when you get down to it. Evangelicals were really a cheap date for the Republicans at the time, and it wasn't until GWB that they even so much as got the Party to pass meaningless legislation (that they had no intention of vigoursly defending).
This doesn't surprise me - it is very obvious that "Evangelical Conservatives" covers and covered a coalition that includes serious committed Christians trying to legislate Christian morality (including Christian sexual morality) and also unchurched Red Tribers for whom "Evangelical Christian" is a tribal label and not a religious one trying to clown on their outgroup. (If I had to point fingers at specific pastors, I would say Billy Graham vs Pat Robertson.) It doesn't surprise me that the actual Christians have to hold their noses to vote for Republicans, or that they do.
There are plenty of leftwing shifts on social issues where "regular grandmas" as @georgioz put it, did fight for traditional values, most obviously abortion. But preserving the traditional understanding of marriage, at least in the US, wasn't one of them. (The British Christian right, despite being much weaker than its American equivalent, did fight the issue, and as a result we didn't get de facto no fault divorce until 1986 and de jure no fault divorce until 2022, despite a blue-ribbon commission calling for no-fault divorce as early as 1967)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Sure, I do not even deny it, the point being that it is not some conscious choice, but slow changing of culture. For instance silent generation grew up in schools where crosses, framed ten commandments or morning prayers were the norm even if not many of them consciously thought of it. Now those are often outright banned by the very same silent generation, but there are progress flags and Earth Day and other such things in schools instead. It is change in culture and ethos.
I like the way James Lindsay explains it in the form of various philosophical systems where theology is the grounding pilar, it is fundamental meta-narrative that determines the ultimate nature of reality, truth, and human purpose. Theology synthetizes other particular philosophies such as cosmology, epistemology, anthropology, sociology, axiology, hamartiology etc. So for instance Christians have God at the center of their theology, this informs epistemology through divine revelation and empirical observation of God's creation, man is created in image of God, Christian virtue ethics is objective morality based on God's commandments. I think he compared it to Marxism which views Man (species being) at the center, epistemology is based on your standpoint in class and other hierarchies providing you with unique insights, nature of man is as social being that is entirely shaped by material conditions etc. These are incompatible philosophical systems.
Using Scott Alexander's language, Culture War is Conflict Theory all the way down especially with such radical differences on basic things like ontology, epistemology or ideas of how society should function. Somebody will be in charge, if not you then somebody else that may have vastly different philosophical system which will seep into culture and ultimately politics. Mistatke theroy is just camouflage, you take the dominant theological/philosophical system as given, an then argue as if progressives and classical liberals or Christian nationalists or Islamists are just mistaken in how their policy proposal will bring about "greater good". But in reality you are just theocrat for your own system and view other competing systems through that prism. Mistake theory is luxury to be indulged for debates inside this philosophical system where people are theologically aligned.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I notice that you've chosen two culture war topics whose modern implementations scripture doesn't clearly address. Christ never instructs us to form a government that taxes its citizens to entice an underclass onto welfare, or to encourage entering a country uninspected. Those are prudential policy questions where faithful Christians can and do disagree, and I'd agree Paul's command doesn't apply there.
Paul names the sexually immoral first in that very list, why test the command against cases he doesn't mention rather than the ones he does? Sexual immorality and infanticide are where scripture speaks plainly, and where the discipline of 1 Corinthians 5 should apply..
Disagreeing over how a government should care for the poor is a dispute about means toward a biblical end. Living in unrepentant sin is not a policy position, it is the thing the command addresses.
I'm focusing less on sexual immorality because several of the most well known theologian and pastors who were driving inclusion of homosexuals into the clergy were defrocked.
I agree that 1 Corinthians 5 probably doesn't apply to many political differences. I'm more exploring how to approach hostile people within the church and maintain a religious community.
A section I thought about discussing in the post but felt it was too far of as aside was how liberals seem to dislike conservatives far more than the other way.
To meme or not to meme? Political social media posts and ideologically motivated aggression in job recommendations
Political (Meta-)Dehumanization in Mental Representations: Divergent Emphases in the Minds of Liberals Versus Conservatives
I believe that likely the UM clergy is imagined microaggression is projection of his own feelings towards the outgroup.
Yes, almost certainly.
Decoupling might explain your asymmetry better than hatred. Low decouplers fuse belief with identity, so disagreement feels like a personal attack. If the UM clergyman experiences disagreement that way, he'll assume conservatives do too. That's the projection.
Sin is the one place Christians must decouple, love the person, hate what's destroying him. Expulsion isn't hostility, it's the last act of love toward a brother. Pray for him. Confront him with the gospel. Then accept that it's the Holy Spirit, not you or me, that changes a heart, and sometimes that takes time away (v. 5, "so that his spirit may be saved"). Paul expects restoration; in 2 Corinthians 2 he tells the church to welcome the man back.
The low decoupler struggles, either he can't expel, because rejecting the sin feels like hating the person, or he expels in hatred. Both fail the text. A church holds together across difference only where people can tell the two apart.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Whilst Paul does not address government policy qua government, Paul states he who does not work does not eat (ie Paul recognized the danger of welfare without work requirement).
Thus, Christian mercy is mixed with Christian pragmatism. That is, while the scripture tells us to give the stranger a drink, it also tells us not to give the same stranger drink after drink.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Traditional Catholics attempt to grow throughout the entire world. If I ever travel to Saudi Arabia, I have the number to call to find out where the underground Latin mass is.
And there is an interesting pattern- in the western hemisphere(including Latin America) and Europe(less ultraconservative parts of Ukraine and the Balkans), we're clearly a separate- even if only slightly- stratum from standard average novus ordo practicing Catholics. This includes Italy and Poland, where services are offered more conservatively. In Africa and India, we're not. Very hostile bishops in the western hemisphere will struggle to articulate doctrinal criticisms, often falling into vagueness. Meanwhile charismatic bishops in Africa can see no difference, or Maronite bishops(who love their 70's guitar hymns). I suppose it can be described as a tribal difference- namely, the difference of valuing high fertility and being more socially conservative than is accepted in the contemporary west. This is, in practice, a bigger deal than difference in beliefs around orthopraxis.
This is especially striking because we're... not shrinking. That kind of growth within a stagnant broader denomination attracts self comparison. And Africans who think the same way about the role of women, or the church's attitude towards contraception, and yet openly defend dancing on the altar during mass, feel more kinship than Italians who find Humanae Vitae deeply embarrassing but have very similar ideas about how the Catholic religion should be practiced.
Now of course in the USA there are many other tribes of practicing Catholic, because the collapse of universal Catholic K-12 education splintered the practicing Catholic world and only the Knights of Columbus have managed to somehow avoid this.
I don't know how, exactly, this slots in with your broader exploration of tribal loyalties. Unlike in your case, there are both red and blue tribe conservatives among the traditional Catholics worshipping and socializing with each other- with both represented in the clergy. But overcoming tribal differences comes only to a point, I suppose.
Per Albion's Seed (see also multiple SlateStarCodex posts explaining the theory with explicit application to the US culture war) the Red and Blue tribes (as tribes - the political coalitions are broader) originated with different Protestant denominations. If you are a believing Catholic who takes the unProtestant bits (particularly Papal primacy, but arguably also the Catholic view of the sacraments) seriously then in my view you are not Red or Blue. Certainly you are a profoundly non-central example of Red or Blue. (The same applies to serious believers in any other non-Protestant religion, but not to secular/Conservative/Reform Jews or cafeteria Catholics who are assimilated into the surrounding post-Protestant secular culture).
The red and blue tribes describe divisions in American into assimilative cultural identities and are at this point not fussier about precise religious identity than they are about direct descent from the border reavers- neither the blue or red tribe follows the religion that their British forebearers once followed(Presbyterianism is an old, shrinking denomination which like most such denominations has liberal clergy and Republican congregations). Mormons are comfortably red tribe and not even trinitarian. And the blue tribe may not even have a majority that believes in God at all, let alone hyperCalvinism.
The Mormons are not Red Tribe. From "I Can Tolerate Anything except the Outgroup":
Does that sound like a Mormon to you?
Doesn't Utah have a higher proportion of federal government employment? If they do, I suggest this is probably at least somewhat true.
That would be the Deep State; the FBI and CIA are lousy with Mormons, and gladly played a huge role in undermining the 1st Trump presidency. The "elite" Mormons are very solidly Blue Tribe, with some Red leanings.
The LDS church is one of the few denominations where more frequent church attendance is correlated with higher education levels, while also being correlated with a higher propensity to vote Republican.
More options
Context Copy link
I think this is true of many denominations. Most of the congregations (and most of the wealth) in my denomination are Red Tribe. For my last baby's dedication I was a tad nervous that the pastor would say "it takes a village" like he did for an earlier dedication while my and my wife's families were in attendance (increasing attendance by 25%). The dynamic in my denomination was progressive theologians and elites actively undermining the denomination but would play Motte and Bailey very well. Red Tribe would screech about the Baileys. The Blue Tribe PMCs at the universities would sit down with the progressives, who would retreat to the Motte, and they were clever and would play semantic games asking exactly what they said was so bad. It took quite a bit of work, but eventually the smarter Red Tribers were able to amass enough evidence of the professors playing in the Bailey.
The PMC Mormons I know had a distinct distaste for Trump's aesthetic. They are also very trusting of the Deep State, probably largely because they all know someone deep in the Deep State. Like in my denomination, they take the Motte of the progressives hook, line, and sinker.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yes. Mormons love soda, own guns, SUV's are literally nicknamed 'Mormon Assault Vehicles', BYU has a strong football program, mormons marry early, American exceptionalism is literally part of their religion, they're officially creationist, etc, etc.
Wrong. The church has no official stance on evolution, though BYU has consistently taught that evolution is compatible with LDS doctrine. To the extent that creationist sentiment exists within the Church, it is chiefly Old Earth Creationism.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah...?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
American Catholics are so profoundly Protestant in attitudes even if they find beauty in the Catholic tradition.
I'll counter your generalization with a generalization - I don't necessarily agree. Many of my friends in college were jaded-ex-religious-turned-leftist types, and you could immediately tell who was raised Catholic. It depends on the area, of course, but I think Catholics have a stink about them that Protestants just don't. I think it has something to do with the papacy and how old the Church is compared to the many Protestant communities that are comparatively much younger.
I’m not surprised you could tell. There are a bunch of groups that just sort of make it obvious, but most of them don’t have a Pope. Homeschoolers, new Agers. Mormons.
More options
Context Copy link
American Catholics by and large are willing to take their own counsel on matters of key religious doctrine (eg abortion).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Before straining to love enemies and the outgroup, Christians should first aim to love friends and brothers. I’ve seen many discussions online about the antisocial climate of American churches, that they lack a genuine community, and my relatives have had similar complaints. The studies on church attendance are grim. If the average churchgoer does not find brotherly love at his church, that’s a more serious problem than whether his love extends to enemies and tribe-traitors and the like. Loving enemies is the great heroic ask of Christ within the context of giving away clothes and willingly being slapped. Augustine (iirc) mentions this rule and is adamant that yes, it’s really possible and we have to do it, which is evidence that in his time it was considered somewhat improbable. But preceding it in importance in the Sermon is the rule about brotherhood:
How many today have true “brothers in Christ” for whom this would even be applicable? I think very few. Friends who happen to be Christian, of course, but it’s uncommon to have Christian brotherhood, ie an intense fraternal bond mediated by religious camaraderie. Yet this was supposed to be the characteristic social relationship of the faith. Tertullian in 200ad wrote —
Well, modern Christian statements about love seem “extremely false and feigned”. There’s not a lot of love in churches. There’s more love at a Juggalo gathering or a Grateful Dead parking lot. That is my read on it, at least.
That is true, however I do not think that church is the best place to create brotherly bonds. At least men create them shoulder-to-shoulder, doing specific activities and not just visiting church during mass. At the end of each mass priest invites people to various activities from pilgrimages, charity events, outdoor masses with live music and anything in between. This is where you have to step up. Or you can even join international fraternities such as Knights of Columbus.
More options
Context Copy link
I'm reminded of the New Model Army as an example of Christian brotherhood. They were really serious about Christianity and almost incomprehensible doctrinal issues to us moderns like what books of prayer there should be and how exactly churches should be organized.
Their fervour and discipline and conviction gave them such battlefield strength that they held Britain and Ireland in their hands, marching around and smashing any rebels they found.
Also extending the lifespan of the British monarchy by 1000 years by trying to ban secular Christmas celebrations.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link