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.
There is some good here. But the problem with over-prioritizing symbolism is that it weakens the power of the original meaning. For instance, making “Lord” into only an imagined presence we speak to weakens the significance of talking to your Lord. In antiquity, talking to your Lord was a big deal — the Lord controlled your entire realm, not to mention your destiny. For Christians, Lord was the established authority with maximum culturally-informed value judgments which were deeply internalized (to describe it as scientifically as possible). If the Lord is defined as a presence we imagine, and this presence is only an abstractly conceptualized ground of being, then we have lost considerable motivation to pray or act righteously. We are just playing pretend — and perhaps we always are — but the pretend isn’t even dramatic. The dramatic pull is gone. The totalizing, moralizing vibe is gone. And it risks becoming woefully subjective, and it also risks toppling like the Tower of Babel — we can’t build upon the rock of Christ if each person’s Christ is different.
I mean imagine you’re at some mystical Christian gathering, and you’re crying because the weight of your sin is too strong and you don’t want to betray your savior — how can the “mystic” answer? “Whoa, you’re taking this imagined presence thing really seriously…” Or who is going to donate their wealth over an “imagined presence”? It lacks force.
What I think is a better solution here, is not to say “Lord is imagined”, but to say that these words are the only way we can access reality — particularly a socialized, moral, emotional reality. By socialized, I mean both “discussing complex spiritual reality within a shared language and framework” and “with the cooperative presuppositions which answer myriad collective action concerns”. These words act as an interface by which we access the divine. On the human-level, then, you really do have a Lord with whom all the poetic elaborations of creation and judgment are solidly true. On the material-level, there is no Lord. Is this such a difficult leap to make? I don’t think so; after all, the Christian must believe that the bread (material) becomes the flesh and blood of the Lord (spiritual) within a shared social ecosystem designed toward moral reinforcement.
Now, a pious Christian does use imagination in prayer: perhaps they kneel, perhaps they look up, perhaps they repeat some words which cement His dominion over all things (the earth is God’s footstool). But they use imagination only to elaborate and feel the beliefs or dogmas that they hold. They are hallowing the name of God and bidding the Kingdom come. They do this because they believe the consequences are important. If everything is symbols all the way down, then what is the importance of it all? You need something which roots the urgency and significance of the quest. Otherwise you’re just satisfying your own limited ego or whim, you’re not actually involved in making the world better or anything good. Why not just play Dungeons & Dragons, or WoW? Why not just talk to ChatGPT? So any religious quest needs to be rooted in a totalizing importance. And there are actually decent ways to combine it with secular importance, but traditionally what religion does is get you into an environment where they can propagandize their root concerns to you: the wrath of God is coming, we slew God’s Son; God’s Son came to forgive us and save us from evil; there is an eternal punishment and an eternal abode for the righteous. Etc. Maybe they have the children sing about the earth burning in smoke. Maybe you are peer-evaluated by your perceived faith and banished for your doubt.
A purely symbolic religion will not get martyrdom like this:
I like Jonathan Pageau but his writings suffer this same problem. A person just isn’t moved by knowing symbols, or poems, or anything clever. If you have 1000 symbols versus 1 “this man died to save the world and now waits for you”, you are going to be changed from the simple non-symbolic thing. And I enjoyed Jordan Peterson’s thoughts on the Old Testament, but again this has the same problem — JBP can’t even admit to being a Christian in an argument with a teenager. And lastly, around Christ’s time you had the Alexandrian school of Philo, and they also doubted the real body of Christ, and they wrote thousands of pages allegorizing the Old Testament with symbols. And it’s a pleasant read, but it’s worthless and doesn’t actually do anything.
I haven’t considered myself a Christian for a long time. The idea that you can appeal to some supreme being to intervene in your daily struggles - and that he’d actually do something about it - strikes me as deeply arrogant. It feels like narcissism.
Another reason I stepped away from Christianity is the growing sense that, as an institution, it’s far more invested in preserving its own status and influence than in any genuine truth. Most of the people at its core seem more concerned with hierarchy and control than with the transcendental.
I need my gods to be beyond the petty politics of old men in robes. The closest I’ve come to something I could follow are movements like the Bogomils/Cathars/Manichaeans, yet I don't think if there is a god he'd be particularly interested in my own personal needs.
The substance of prayer is cultivating a disposition, salience / sensitivity, and object of thanks. I mean I’m sure there are Christians out there praying to win a lottery ticket, but this is not the sophisticated method of prayer. I think most traditional churches would advise that you pray for spiritual benefits and basic needs. You could argue that Christ even advises a person to pray only for the kingdom and righteousness and not even basic needs. However I think there’s room to pray regarding all feasible goal pursuits with undue confidence, because that’s beneficial for a person.
Arrogance and narcissism are bad because they are antisocial. If a person believes that a loving God cares about everyone maximally, this would have prosocial behavioral consequences. Calling this narcissistic or arrogant is a category error of sorts. It’s just a mismatch of terminology.
I see a lot wrong with nearly every church so I can’t disagree here. But that doesn’t mean that we should throw out all the developments of Western religion.
I'm curious for your critiques on Orthodoxy? The way you approach theology seems somewhat similar to other Orthodox folks I've read, though you're a bit more consequentialist/game theory focused I must admit.
Orthodoxy (like Catholicism) does not establish the social requirements necessary for true Christian life. A person’s social identity must be governed by their faith in a deeper sense. There needs to be real brotherhood where peers esteem and honor each other for faith, where even small infractions may lead to reprimands (as Christ advises), and where there is an implicit pious competition over faith (wherever men gather with a genuine shared aim, implicit competition exists no matter always, as a feature of human nature and Christ ennobles this fact). They must celebrate Christ as their shared superior peer, not just as a figure in a ritual. A person needs to look forward to sharing their faith and progress like they do today with their grades, deadlifts, cars, haircuts, vacations. But actually, no, 10x more than this — but at the very least you need the social institutions which enable and guide it.
For a long period, churches were able to ignore explicating this social requirement, because —
Churches had a monopoly on the most compelling art, music, and schools, creating an effortless social draw
Churches were willing to genuinely condemn and excommunicate members whose behavior was not up to par, forming behavioral-belief enforcement, and if a priest heard you were living an unchristian life or denying dogmas, you would face actual condemnation. This condemnation would have real effects on your social identity: your job prospects, marriage prospects, your ability to make friends or to find occasions for fun
There was no competing religion or science, in a way we can hardly fathom today, meaning the Christian worldview did not need to be reinforced like it did in the earliest days of the religion. If all the smartest people who know the most are Christian, then it is believed as default. (Today we are competing with a secular culture that doesn’t just promote a more compelling argument, but has significantly better media at their disposal, and your child is pressured into attending their institutions).
The current institution doesn’t work. But what would work is if we look at the church Christ established. How did the first Christians thrive despite more scientifically compelling beliefs and more hedonistic movements?
Brotherhood was enforced via the agape eucharist. This was an intimate feast with real food and wine, had in honor of Christ every week, where all the brothers enforced each other’s social identity in remembrance of Christ, with peer praise and songs. This is the do this in the Lord’s do this in remembrance of me. (Women were kept submissive so as not to derail the vibe, and chastity was enforced so that men do not compete over women.)
A norm of esteeming each other’s faith was enforced as the prevailing mode of conversation: “Let love be genuine… love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor. Do not be slothful in zeal, be fervent in spirit.” “Timothy has proved himself, worthy as a son with his father”. "I am reminded of your sincere faith, which first lived in your grandmother Lois and in your mother Eunice.” "I always thank my God as I remember you in my prayers, because I hear about your love and the faith you have toward the Lord Jesus and for all God’s people." "It gave me great joy when some believers came and testified about your faithfulness to the truth, how you continue to walk in it. I have no greater joy than to hear that my children are walking in the truth”. This is all throughout the epistles: men and women are esteemed for their faithfulness and obedience to righteousness. We first see this habit of esteem in Jesus, who honors and praises John publicly.
On the other hand, a culture condemning defectors, even by name to the entire church, as Paul does on different occasions in the epistles.
A culture of condemning all distractions, like Tertullian does against the theater and the “spectacles”. Can you imagine there are churches where people talk proudly about having seen Hamilton? Or going to a basketball game? Yeah, you would have been disciplined in the early church for that.
Essentially, all of the normal wholesome motivations of man are Christened. They are “baptized” within the social immersion of the Church, the prototype of which is the Ark (“by which a few, namely 8, are saved”.)
Modern churches are like the “we are one big family” pep rallies that corporate retail makes you do. It doesn’t matter how often it’s repeated, you’re not a family, because such feelings aren’t formed that way. Because brotherhood doesn’t come from sitting in a building listening to someone or watching something happen. That’s one step above watching TV. Christ wasn’t redefining the nature of brotherhood when he commanded brotherly love, He was saying, “all this stuff I’m saying? If it doesn’t exist in a zealous brotherhood it’s all for nothing.”
I’m sure there are some brotherhoods that develop incidentally within a modern church ecosystem, where a small group of zealous men genuinely try to keep aflame the Holy Spirit through frequent meetings. But I think this is probably rare in the wild and I almost never hear about it. I have seen some on Discord, but of course, that’s not any better. And if these brotherhoods do develop within the ecosystem, almost all the gain occurs outside the church. Maybe you’ll hear some wisdom in the church and hear a good song and that’s beneficial, but the “real presence” will not be in the church rituals, so it’s effectively worthless.
Maybe a scenario would have been better to sum up my babbling. Imagine it’s war and you’re in the trenches. You’ve gotten word that your death is near-assured within the month. In the trench with you are two other Christians, brothers in arms, as well as a small hymnal (powerful melodies) and a reasonable amount of wine. If all three of you wanted to secure the salvation of your souls before death, what would you do? Imagine the gains that you would have in that month with nothing but the bare minimum: a sincere brotherhood, some songs, some wine, and the certainty of death. Wouldn’t it exceed anything you could gain in a modern church over an entire lifespan?
Thank you for the detailed response!
I think part of the problem is that many churches try to do this, and end up shaming each other and causing all sorts of antisocial issues, grasping at social status, etc etc. How do you propose to avoid all of this? These are major problems that have derailed all sorts of churches in the past.
You know, I do think the "vibe" of Christianity could and should be more intense, we should be more focused on the faith, etc. I think that's the aim of monasteries. Have you heard of this book? My copy has not yet arrived but from what I've heard on podcasts this book probably argues something very similar.
And again my question is - are you going to start a new Church? What is the actual plan you have (assuming you are a Christian - I actually don't know!) From my POV, even if most churches aren't perfect, it's a sight better to join an existing church that is directionally right (compared to other churches) and do my best, rather than trying to start something myself.
Like so —
Christians should have the easiest time doing this, because that’s the whole message of Christ. The gospel traces the start of a Brotherhood while the Epistles outline its governance. If no one can do it, it means they have to learn and revere Christ who did it, and then encourage each other in Christ, and then select the most Christlike to head the group, and so on. And that’s precisely what we see in the first Christian church. They are learning, encouraging, criticizing, expanding. You get the sense that the brotherhood was based exclusively in positive reinforcement and perhaps some “training”, and only reserving punishment for the very damaging things. If this is so, then status is mostly positive sum.
In the first Pagan letter about the “contagion” of Christianity, we see that some modest oaths were involved —
There would obviously be sin present at the table but sin already exists wherever friend groups and social networks congregate. Every college has a dozen fraternities nominally dedicated to some trite values but really dedicated to Bacchus, and people enjoy this greatly even though there’s drama and occasional fighting. If Christians can’t do a greater job of uniting men together when all the men revere Christ, then religion itself is a failed project. But this isn’t so. I think it would be quite feasible especially with good selection filters and rules in place.
I agree that, because nothing like this exists, it’s good to do the next best thing. But just from historical study + psychology, nothing going to be effective like this.
I am going go continue reading and longing. Maybe one day a compelling substack post.
I hope you become a priest. Would be a good calling for you, from your writing on here!!!
But yeah I mean, sigh. That’s the rub. We can long for a better church all day but for our individual souls we need community. I agree with most of your critiques and wish we were more like the original church, that’s Orthodoxy’s whole thing. Even if we aren’t always perfect at it.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link