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 -
In my circles on twitter, the Mystical Christianity conversation is cropping up again. It tends to come around every few months, at least for the past year I've been on the site.
Tyler Alterman writes a long post on it that is mostly summed up here:
Now to broaden this outside of just Christianity, I'm curious what the Motte thinks of symbolism as a whole? I will admit my own path back to religion came via a symbolic pathway, although I believe it goes far deeper than this.
That being said, from my short time here it seems like most of the Christians on this site aren't that into symbolism, and tend to be more "rationalist" and materialist in their worldview. Again, might have a mistaken impression.
I know this is a rationalist offshoot forum so not sure I expect a ton of mystical/symbolic discussion, but I'm kind of surprised by how little there is given how many professed religious folks there are here. And I do think from a Culture War angle, that materialism is definitely losing steam (especially amongst the right) as we see more and more cracks form in the edifice of Expert Scientific Opinion(tm).
On a deeper note, the symbolic worldview is all about seeing the world through the language of God (or meaning if you prefer), in a way that helps people bind together and understand events in the same way. Right now we are in "darkness" symbolically because, well, nobody can interpret events the same way! I personally think a return to the symbolic is inevitable given how confused everything is at the moment, although the transition may not be smooth or easy.
I truly truly do not understand why these people don't just go be Catholic.
It's ancient, and mysterious (it's 2000 years old)
It has nearly unlimited "aura"; home to the most beautiful buildings and art on earth
There is unlimited amounts of "mysticism" if that's what you're looking for. Most churches hold something called "adoration" where they open the tabernacle and allow people to sit and pray in what they (we) consider the true presence of the body of Christ.
Continuing on the mysticism, there are things like The Rosary, and holy water.
If you want to try and get "Buddhism but Christian", you're in luck. We have prayer beads (the rosary), mantras (prayers), monks, ancient philosophy and meditation.
I don't even know how to properly address the "science" question that people seem to want to throw at religious people as a Catholic. There is nothing in Catholicism which is incompatible with wanting to pursue science and we Catholics would consider scientific inquiry a good thing. The big bang, evolution, whatever els, etc. these things are all not just "allowed" within the doctrine, but encouraged.
I think there's a weird thing happening where the new atheists did a good job of attacking the absurd claims of evangelical protestantism, but somehow lumped the Catholics in with them. I think people are waking up to this, but the contrarianism that led them to atheism to begin with doesn't let them just return to the obvious answer (the Catholic church). I think that's basically also why you see some of these people gravitating towards the Eastern Orthodox church. They can't just go be OG Christians, you see, they have to find this other offshoot thing so that they can maintain some sense that they were always right, and that the "real" church was hidden or something.
Just go be Catholic. It's annoying how obvious the answer to all of this is. There's nothing clever or surprising, it really just was the most obvious thing all along.
Well, mostly because "aw nah you're telling me all my fun stuff I can't do that anymore? I have to go to confession? I have to believe - or at least say I believe - that stuff for real?" Even if the majority of average Catholics don't know, don't believe, and don't live the religion, and even if you get a liberal priest who will tell you during RCIA "look, just cross your fingers and say 'yeah I believe this' but I don't expect you to really do so", you still have to sign up to "yes, Transubstantiation" and the rest of it. There are still The Rules. The pope is still the boss of you. You can't go wandering through the aisles putting a bit of this, a pinch of that, oh and let's have this thing here from the ranks of world religions to suit your tastes.
I've seen some examples of pick'n'mix taking the shiny mystical 'ooh look icons' part from other traditions within a particular Protestant denomination and it annoyed the heck out of me, because it was taking Serious Theology and playing dress-up with it. I'm not going to name any names because I'm not a member of that denomination but I'm not even Orthodox and I think you cannot just go "oh this is so mystic and foreign and quaint and not like traditional Western Christianity in its forms" and play dress-up with it.
More options
Context Copy link
I absolutely agree. In fact I would even argue that Christian/Catholic science is actually the most genuine one, in fact Thomas Aquinas was famous adherent of empiricism with claim that truth cannot contradict truth - meaning that if truth of Faith and truth of Reason are in contradiction, it means either faulty reasoning or incorrect interpretation of scripture.
I would argue that this view of truth is crucial for scientific endeavor as they promote true and free research even if it is let's say supposedly against some religious dogma. In this sense Catholic science is much freer than let's say Soviet Science or often even modern ideological progressive science which is much more heavy with (self)censorship.
More options
Context Copy link
I would guess that many Orthodox converts in US sincerely go for Orthodoxy instead of Catholicism because they've looked into the history and other such things and sincerely concluded that it is Orthodoxy that is the original church and Catholicism the innovating offshoot. (Locally, in Finland, Catholicism isn't even much of an option for many, since it's an even-tinier and more foreign a minority than Orthodoxy.)
That's probably a tiny minority of very academically-minded converts. As a recent convert in the US in a parish full of recent converts and catechumens and I can tell you that for most of us, the draw was something that is at once utterly at the core of our civilization but at the same time outside of the mainstream enough to not be corrupted by the various forces that pushed us into the Church from wherever we were before.
We have young people coming from broken/divorced families realizing that we have no cultural infrastructure left to build our own families on. We are disillusioned with political solutions to problems. This tends to start with a disgust with the excesses of the left, but I find that most of the "political refugees" that come into the church seeking solely a spiritual justification for their right-wing politics either end up leaving, or in the better case, they find that the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church transcends the political squabbles of 2025 America (though the Church is undeniably traditionalist on many social issues). The scientific enterprise is utterly unable to offer meaning, point ways to build community, and show ways to walk with the divine. Of course, any honest scientist must admit that these are domains outside of the scientific purview. But, especially after COVID, it became obvious to many of us that even in its own domain, the scientific institutions are all too fragile and corrupt -- all too fallen and sinful we come to find out. Perennial problems, but perhaps acutely so in the decadent, post-enlightenment, post-liberal west.
In the face of this, where are we to seek stability, truth, and life more abundant? Protestantism is seen as either dominated by the religion of liberalism (Episcopalian churches with rainbow flags on the outside, and no one inside) or otherwise by fundamentalist young earth creationist types, who cannot be taken seriously by many with even a little bit of curiosity. Relative to the High Church traditions of the Latin Catholics and Orthodoxy, Protestants are also seen as utterly devoid of ritual, which is something I think most Western people are starving for without realizing it. It's hard to get a sense of the Divine without embodying and acting out the symbols and metaphors which point to our ability to the relate to God. Without embodied metaphors (ie rituals), it's hard to focus the mind and find the weightiness of certain moments and places compared to others. Without this weightiness, there is nothing set aside (ie sacred). Every place and moment is fungible, profane. The wet dream of economism.
Why not Catholicism? It's a close second for sure, especially in its traditionalist dispensations, but I think it gets rightly associated with many of the utilitarian/rationalistic excesses of the contemporary West. If the mainstream itself has grown decadent, it's only right to find fault with the largest religious institution of the West. There is a whole new conversation to have here about the Eastern vs Western churches, but suffice it to say that, especially post Vatican II, the Latin Catholic Church has itself become a part of the profane decadent mainstream which it is supposed to be a bulwark against (I recently attended a Catholic Mass which had stadium seating -- with the altar on a stage below the people -- and PowerPoint-style projections of song lyrics and pictures related to the service. Hard to imagine something less otherworldly than that experience). And there are also the sex scandals.
Not to say there are no flaws in Orthodoxy as currently practiced in the West. The earthly Church is not the Heavenly Church. Not fully. Not yet...
It's only after some time in Orthodoxy do we learn about the history and the arguments that it is the original Church. But I think the results speak louder than any history lesson.
Not a tiny minority at my church, I'd say it's over half the converts that get convinced at least partially by the historical differences of the two churches. Just an anecdote.
Also yeah, my first experience of mass was in a gym. Suffice to say I was much more impressed with the Divine Liturgy.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You actually don't?
I did briefly consider becoming Catholic, went to Mass for a while, went to some events read a lot, and so on, so I'll bite.
The face of Catholicism probably varies pretty widely by region, some of the churches I visited included:
These are all reasons to hang out with Catholics and visit historic missions, which I certainly still do. I would consider sending my kids to Catholic school (my husband did).
None of them are reasons to actually become Catholic if you don't believe its teachings, which is very, very common. I don't like the rosary, but if I did I wouldn't let not being Catholic stop me from saying it.
A very very common story is:
“I kindof like the architecture” -> “I guess I’ll send my kids to Catholic school since they’re good schools” -> “praying the rosary is kindof nice” -> “confession is cathartic” -> “I believe in one god, the father almighty, the maker of heaven and earth”
The positive feelings you are experiencing in these places are you interacting with grace. That’s good, keep following the things that feel good in that way, and if there are things you don’t like, don’t do them.
I'm Orthodox, because of their Liturgy. Husband, who grew up Catholic, is heading more my direction. But the children are unbaptized, because we are not good at making it through the (profound! beautiful! sublime! long!) Liturgy. Unfortunately.
Go get those kids baptized! Use it as an excuse to throw a huge party.
I keep seeing photos of Pope Leo and the patriarch of Constantinople together. I really pray that there is something unifying coming soon. Lots of the EO stuff is beautiful, and in my mind these are the same church, just different forms of the mass. EO occupies a similar space in my mind to the TLM.
Yes. But we have to make it to church enough first. Which is a struggle.
Does orthodoxy really have such a strong norm towards ‘children must be PERFECT in liturgy or not go’? I ask because Byzantine Catholicism has, uh, thé opposite reputation.
You’ve posted before about the challenge of wrangling little people through Divine Liturgy(and I can sympathize), but Byzantine Catholic services are IME full of children being basically ignored until they start full on screaming. Maybe it’s a difference from thé ‘if you’re married you have to have babies and not stop’ mentality religious Catholics tend to have and orthodoxy is different- but it would surprise me.
No, the children can play nicely while whispering, nap, color, flop about a bit on the rug, or walk in and out as they're able to behave quietly or not. One priest said that he'd rather they were there and screaming than not there, but nobody behaves like they believe him, including his own wife and children.
Mostly, though, if we can't receive Communion, can't hear or concentrate on the prayers, can't sing, can't hear the sermon because we spend it either suppressing child activity or in a different room, then where are we even doing?
Edit: We'd probably do better if we had a specific goal, and should probably go talk to a priest about it. I know.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I strongly believe the “gung ho liturgy go hard fasting is hard everyone must follow rules originally followed by monks” energy of Orthodoxy, which attracts the competitive male converts to it, is also the greatest problem for the Orthodox Church. The “standard” practice is incredibly high — and in service of an incredibly high goal, total union with God. Literally to “have everything that God has.”
I often feel like the Orthodox Church sets up people to fail. All the models of faith that the Orthodox Church offers in modern times are very hard to approach, and many are claimed to literally work miracles. The impression I get is that the goal for the laity is to be a monk. Even the supposed basics involve going vegan for half the year.
And yes, I know the objection: ask your priest! The rules can be changed! Economia!
Gee, thanks. I always wanted to be a charity case, a special exception, because I don’t want to be moaning on the floor of the parish hall on Easter Sunday because I was finally able to eat a cheeseburger. This also understandably raises questions of moral inconsistency and clerical power.
My earlier post about the Orthodox Church, the AAQC one — I guess what I was trying to get across in that rambling diversion was that it’s really hard for me, and people I love, to imagine actually living an Orthodox lifestyle.
Every ex-orthodox rant post I’ve ever read boils down to that — the demands of the Orthodox faith are incredibly high. Perhaps that’s what God asks of people. But perhaps not.
I believe the Western approach, of mandating a low minimum and permitting more intense asceticism as spiritual directors and the Spirit himself guides, is a more human and fruitful approach. It sets up people to succeed, not to fail. And it remains open to sanctity in lay life, in a way I think E. Orthodoxy struggles to do.
Just some disorganized thoughts. But my general posture towards Orthodoxy is this — they can have all the theological points they want, but I have to find the way where I can actually follow Christ. And I’m not convinced the Eastern Orthodox Church is that place.
It's not about being a charity case. It's a pastoral approach that is completely in keeping with Christology in general (God became Man, a particular Man, so that we could be come god) and the EO emphasis on the Persons of the Trinity (and Their particularity) compared to the emphasis on the Unity of the Trinity in the West. You might want to argue against this theology, but it's completely internally consistent. Seeing the Particular as a manifestation of the Ultimate and Universal is the name of the game, and clergy applying this to the personal needs and stations of their flock is the rule, not the "special exception." If that looks like morally inconsistent from the point of view of western theology, all I can say is that maybe western theology is wrong and in any case, Christians are not worshippers of Immanuel Kant.
What you described here is exactly the way my parish is run. It's an Orthodox Church in America parish in a major US city on the East Coast, if that matters.
More options
Context Copy link
Honestly, if we could invent a time machine I'd go back and kick the stuffing out of the Second Vatican Council. Yes, there were stodgy abuses that needed correcting. Yes, people had no idea what was going on at Mass and just prayed the rosary. Yes, yes, yes. Reform was needed, a refreshing of catechesis so people understood and didn't just learn off by rote and then forget. Urging people to a living faith and piety. All that was indeed true.
But we threw not alone the baby out with the bathwater, but the bath, the fittings, the plumbing, and demolished the bathroom along with it. The brave pioneers decided that emulating Protestantism was where it was at, and whatever architects persuaded bishops that "what the modern congregation wants is a church that looks like a warehouse", yeah they're number two on the list for the kicking.
We had mysticism. We had folk piety. We scrapped it all in the name of relevance or some damn thing, and this is what we ended up with.
More options
Context Copy link
For me, the appeal of Orthodoxy was two fold. First, it takes itself seriously. The priests for the most part believe in God. Faith is contagious, and I have a hard time believing in something that the adherents don’t even believe themselves. My first experience in Orthodoxy was a candle lit, pre-dawn liturgy at a monastery, and the hieromonk said every prayer of the liturgy as if it mattered.
The second appeal was its personal ethos, as opposed to the more institutional ethos of the Catholics. I did my catechumenate in Berkeley and I would stay after church and talk with people for hours. The priest would often take me out for coffee after coffee hour. He’s not the most impressive priest, a little socially awkward, and one of our few celibate clergy. But he gave me plenty of time and attention.
In my years of spiritual wandering, I most frequently visited Catholic Churches but I never made a friend, or even had a conversation that I can recall
More options
Context Copy link
This REALLY depends on your parish my friend. I've read a lot of the Orthodox Church Fathers and yeah, the asceticism can be pretty harsh.
That being said, my own parish is very chill and the priest has basically told me that if it isn't good for my soul, don't worry about it. Hell, he even told me that my girlfriend and I living together was ok as long as it was good for the relationship, since we were dating before I converted.
Overall my experience has absolutely NOT been of a super militant, super strict fasting, hardcore church. I would strongly urge you to check out different parishes, or hang out with different groups.
Also, online Orthodoxy is horrible and I wouldn't go near it tbh. I have found very few public, online Orthodox folks that I think are actually humble. And humility is the chief virtue, without her we have nothing.
More options
Context Copy link
Personally, it's less about theological points than about Beauty. Catholics built plenty of beautiful churches in the past, but the Orthodox are still building them, even though there are a lot fewer members, and so it might only be one per city. That one will generally be beautiful. They will cover it in mosaics and iconography, swing huge chandeliers on feast days, embed eagles into the tiles, have a beautiful dome with Christ looking down. Many of the churches in America are new and aren't fully finished yet, but are as beautiful as the parish is able to make them. The chanting is as beautiful as the choir members are able to make it, depending on local skill levels. They do generally work pretty hard at it, and still care about the beauty in a way that Catholics used to, but often don't anymore, even when they've inherited grand and storied cathedrals. They're one of very, very few groups that are still making everything as beautiful as they're able to in Current Year, which is almost as important as theology. Of course Dostoyevsky, coming from an Orthodox tradition, would say "beauty will save the world."
I grew up Evangelical, and joined the Orthodox Church in college, when there was a Greek mission inhabiting a lovely old Catholic Church within walking distance of my dorm. I like standing silently, and liked learning to cook tofu and lentils from my charming Greek Godmother, and it was all very lovely. It continued to be lovely when I moved for a Great Books program, and found a church within walking distance, with a wonderful, experienced priest who I could listen to for hours, and did. I went to Matins, Vespers, Paraklesis, book clubs, and anything else that was happening there. And then I was in the Republic of Georgia, which has wonderful old churches and a lot of energy from rebuilding after communism, and also a very beautiful chant tradition.
The small children in Georgia came and went, I think, though I didn't watch them closely. They looked like they spent a lot of time playing in the courtyard (and there were courtyards for them to play in). I think that Orthodoxy does have room for families that walk up the hill to the church who's names day it is to light a candle and have a party. They would spread feasts (Supras) during fasting periods, and some of the people wouldn't eat some of the things, especially the women, but it wasn't that big a deal, they would still cook roast chicken for whoever wanted it. But Americans aren't like that, and ultimately my husband and I are American, and feel miserable coming and going from the church service to the children's room and back as necessary.
So every once in a while I post here about how I don't know what to do. The plan has been Just Do It for about five years now, and maybe one of these years it will take. My husband is more willing to go to an Orthodox Church with me than any other kind of church, was enthusiastic about naming the children after saints, having icons in the house, and playing Russian chants on the speakers. He's not at all enthusiastic about standing still and getting small children to be still for three hours, and would probably be happy as an alter server (or any role, really, other than getting the children to be still) if only we could Just Do It long enough to get there.
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
More options
Context Copy link
The Catholic church does have literal and explicit minimum standards for acceptable Catholicity, and 'it's all a symbol' does not meet it even if the formulation in many cases might not be formally condemned. And in practice, there's a host of miracles that actually religious Catholics literally believe in(some with evidence, even) even if they aren't technically required.
'Not supernatural' is not a good description of Catholicism.
More options
Context Copy link
They don't believe Christ actually rose from the dead, and can't accept that it's possible. That's pretty straightforward, no?
I didn’t believe that Christ actually rose from the dead when I started exploring Orthodox spirituality. How are you supposed to marry someone before the first date?
They can certainly start exploring it. But that's different from "just go be Catholic." They can, of course, go to Catholic services and festivals, read Catholic books, talk to people, attend classes, and so on without believing. In historically Catholic regions they very often do, in fact.
In reality though, they should "just go be Orthodox." ;P
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