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 -
He Gets Us
There has been great controversy over a recent Christian ad that played during the Super Bowl.
“He gets us,” the ad in question, and the organization that created it, is a subsidiary of the ‘The Signatry,’ a fund that aims to spread biblical teachings around the planet, which is also a business alias by another organization called “The Servant foundation.” It is one of the largest Christian Grant foundations in the world, with donations from many of the top churches in the country as well as billionaires such as David Green, the owner of hobby lobby. It has pledged over half a billion dollars to the spread of their message on a global scale, with a large portion going to America exclusively.
This has caused habitual controversy within secular circles among those blue tribe adjacent, with many of their reactions being familiar to those already within religious denominations. What is ironic, however, is that these ad campaigns were modeled in a way that was specifically tailored to the leftist worldview by very modern sects of Christianity. The campaign focused on a perception of Jesus with traits that are explicitly progressive. Examine some of the perspectives given by the organization
-Jesus was a refugee and an Immigrant
-Jesus was an ‘influencer’ who got ‘cancelled’ after standing up for something he believed in
-Jesus was wrongly judged
-Jesus had to control his outrage too
Take a look for yourself at some of the ads in question.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=0z0J-2P8a3s&ab_channel=HeGetsUs
https://youtube.com/watch?v=v1IJFJwexus&ab_channel=HeGetsUs
https://youtube.com/watch?v=QEEq5VTfmic&ab_channel=HeGetsUs
Since I assume most members of this forum are atheists, most would not look any deeper into the motivations or presentation of this ad campaign with any closer analysis than they would any other form of Christian evangelism. But the point of my post is not to examine this ad campaign, but to extrapolate on a current trend of modern Christianity that is exemplified within it.
To say that the ad campaign was a complete failure is an understatement. It resonated with very few non-religious people, failed spectacularly with leftists in general, and came with the same amount of pushback that any other Christian sentiments in popular media would receive.
AOC claimed that the ads “Makes fascism look benign.”
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/aoc-jesus-ad-fascism-definition-superbowl-he-gets-us-b2281862.html
For full disclosure, I am a Christian who converted as an adult, and have perspectives of both religious and non-religious worldviews. There is a succinct lack of understanding of the goings on in the Christian community by non-religious people and I wish to shed a light on some of the current underpinnings.
Unbeknownst to many outside the church, Christians are dealing with a type of heretical civil conflict within their own faith. ‘Progressive Christianity’ has become commonplace in most urban centers around NA, and it is exactly as it sounds. They usually set up their own churches so they may freely practice their beliefs. Usually, they attract members with a more serious Christian appearance and then slowly ingratiate their own ideology as time goes by. They are a denomination that has made multiple doctrinal changes that are completely against more traditional Christianity.
They do not accept the divinity of Jesus. While traditional Christians believe Jesus to be the literal incarnation of God that walked the earth, progressive Christians merely believe that Jesus was a man who set a good moral example. This also implies that they deny the literal resurrection of Jesus. While these beliefs are not universal, the importance of faith in general is placed very low on the totem pole of progressive Christianity. This turns their interpretation of salvation into human self-actualization. Along with this, there comes with it a denial of the bible as ultimate authority. They believe the bible only goes so far as to give guidelines, but ultimately puts the bible secondary if it contradicts modern sensibilities.
Due to the first point, this lack of belief in the Divinity of Jesus and with the resurrection turns something that was once about salvation into simple moralism. This allows the Christian doctrine to be molded into something that fits more contemporary progressive worldviews, and gives them authority to shame and accuse other churches or Christians of not following 'correct' christian doctrine.
They embrace homosexuality. Gay people can become pastors and other authoritative figures within their churches. While traditional Christianity considers homosexuality a sin, progressive Christian will spout Jesus’ example of love and kindness to trump any biblical teachings that come from other writers in the New Testament. This allows them to still maintain some moral high ground that they accuse other churches and Christians of "unchristian like behavior" and "Not true Christians."
These are the churches that are heavily advertised on Tik-Tok and other social media websites and are extremely popular in that niche. The reality of the churches, however, is vastly different. I have been to many of these churches out of sheer curiosity, and I have never seen any of them survive for any significant period of time. The numbers they draw will repeatedly dwindle, as many of the congregation begin to understand the perspectives being espoused, and will leave the church for a more traditional one. I have many in my Church who are refugees from progressive churches and most of the stories are very similar. Over time their numbers will progressively dwindle, until they cannot afford to stay open and have no congregation. People who are not religious are not interested in becoming religious for simple political motivations, and people who are religious are interested in the legitimate spiritual traditions of the faith, not materialist interpretations of said traditions. Leftists who already hate Christianity are not going to be convinced by a softer form of it. Likewise, people who are already Christians are not going to be effected by people who don't even really believe in the core tenets of Christianity to begin with.
Everyone is familiar with the trend of progressive ideologues infiltrating certain niches and groups and slowly turning them into spokesman of their causes. Regardless of your views of religion or Christianity, it is an extremely durable belief system. It has survived for thousands of years, multiple empires, countless plagues, and disasters, and I don’t think far leftist types yet have an understanding of why that is. Christians don’t go to church or believe out of a hatred or dislike of Homosexuals. Christianity promises eternal life and spiritual salvation for just the simple belief in its figurehead. Progressive Christianity will always fail, because in order to justify their own inclusion of contemporary social beliefs they must subtract the very things about the philosophical aspects of Christianity that make it appealing in the first place.
Regardless of whether or not this particular group or ad worked, there does appear to be a wide scale attempt to infiltrate and subvert Christianity. It’s been around for a long time, but it seems like it’s been more intense over the last couple years.
On a unrelated note, I’ve recently learned a bit more about the Vatican II changes. I’ve been aware of VII for a long time, but after getting into it in more depth, the actual implantation of the counsel was worse than the suggestions. I only bring this up because it seems quite clear to me that loosening up doctrine is what is killing these regions. Perhaps someone should try going the other direction.
Can you cite some good sources on this? I'm not at all quarreling here - just another Catholic interested in learning about VII (and having been suspicious of it for a while)
Take it with a grain of salt but this does show you what was changed and gives some context. Episode 2 specifically. You can skip 1.
https://latinmass.com/watch
I was Jesuit educated and honestly, it was all very palatable when I was 16 and could talk circles around my parents on current doctrine. But I’m starting to wonder, what if they were wrong? The video above shows some examples of the church really taking the edge off things. Specifically what St Paul said about how unworthily taking the Eucharist is inviting Gods judgement. I haven’t been to confession in 2 years…
The Jesuits teach you extremely abstract concepts of heaven and hell. To the point where you can conclude that one can pretty much sin as much as you want and you will be forgiven. And hell is an absence of god for eternity, not the fire of damnation.
What if they’re wrong and what they teach is either intentionally or unintentionally the product of being on the wrong track for generations?
As for Vatican 2. The suggested reforms seem fairly reasonable. The actual implantation was left to a smaller committee where one cardinal ran roughshod over the process and radically changed everything. And why? In the name of ecumenicsm? If that’s even remotely true, it’s an awful shame.
Im rambling a bit but you should check it out. I will say that the more I engage with more traditional Catholicism, the more fulfilling it is. I happened to luck into finding a very good parish when I was getting married. It’s still a novus ordo mass, but radically different than your cookie cutter Irish or Italian American suburban parish.
Is this not standard Catholic dogma? So long as you are truly contrite, of course.
Yes. But the vast majority of people either don’t really know what that means or really think about it to it’s logical conclusion. At least I don’t think they do.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Catholicism’s internal civil war(in which traditionalists are very strong participants) is at a fever pitch right now, unfortunately, and so you are probably not going to find a ‘good’ source because it’s all too controversial.
It is not, by the way, difficult to find polemics, including ones which site hard numbers. They are, however, polemics.
Could you give me a little background on this? I am completely unaware of the conflicts within the catholic church atm.
I had started writing an explainer but then got distracted by events in meat-space. Long story short John-Paul II and the respect he commanded had been what was keeping a lot of long simmering disagreements between the different factions in check. The sex abuse scandals have since become something of an albatross around the progressive wing's neck (this is what comes of tolerating homosexuality and all that). The expectation amongst conservatives was that Benedict XVI would "clean house" but that is not what appears to have happened and now we have pope Francis attempting to appeal to a sense of unity that simply isn't present. See @hydroacetylene's post below.
I think Benedict did try, and I personally found him very much to my inclinations and tastes (even things like the change of the processional staff to something more old-fashioned).
But he suffered from (1) succeeding the rockstar charisma of John Paul II where he was quiet and scholarly and didn't have the personal oomph to ride over the progressives and (2) having been painted as the Rottweiler, Palpatine, all the rest of the negative press that got going pretty much since he was elected. Trying to go back to more disciplined forms of liturgy doesn't work when a chunk of the faithful have been born and grown up under the new forms so have no memory of the old; those who do have the memory of how it used to be are either too old to make a difference, or are liberals who hated the old style anyway.
The Vatican II reforms were never meant to be taken as far as they went, but a lot of liberals at the time seized on them as "Gotta get rid of all this, the Council says so" and literally chopped up churches (there's a church in my town that was built in a conventional Victorian Gothic Revival style, nothing spectacular, really off the shelf, but it was destroyed by being hacked about over the years. The altar is now what I can only describe as a bundle of sticks. The laity sure didn't want the altar rails taken down and the rest of it, it was all down to the clergy). The ideals of going back to simpler, Gospel-oriented worship were great, but the effect was that schools now left teaching up to the parents, the parents thought schools would continue teaching the basics, kids never got the basics and Christian Doctrine classes (as they were in my time) now became all about what you could call social justice discussions.
There's a reason for the joke about "When God saw the Church was no longer suffering persecutions, He sent liturgists".
So Benedict was standing in a razed-flat wasteland trying to get the people who had only known that to come back to the way it used to be, and the press was too busy laughing about his red shoes to try and understand what he was doing.
God rest the man. He at least stood at the tiller and tried to steer the ship.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If you want to get into the doctrine, the Dimond Brothers (VaticanCatholic.com) have some good explainers from the ultra-traditionalist perspective. They’re more than a bit controversial (they go so far as to deny the legitimacy of the post Vatican II popes), but they explain everything well and quote the relevant sources.
More options
Context Copy link
The Catholic Church has been riven by internal conflict over how liberal to go since Vatican II. The reactionaries(we should go more conservative than we are now) are generally referred to as traditionalists, the hardliner conservatives as orthodox, and the hardliner liberals as progressives, with conservative and moderate and liberal being fuzzier terms for people that don’t belong in those camps, more directional than indicating firm allegiance.
JPII and in particular Benedict XVI managed to keep a lid on this conflict, although there were a few notable blowups under JPII and in a lot of cases they kept a lid on it by ignoring the divisions as long as the fighting was behind closed doors. Pope Francis, alas, is not anywhere near as good of a manager. He’s probably not a progressive, but his poor management has left him with very few other allies and little choice but to implement or at least tolerate unpopular and or unwise parts of their agenda. Now you’ve got the powerful conservative former head of the doctrinal department kept from open opposition by expecting the pope to die and be replaced by Benedict XVI’s(quite orthodox) top diplomat within the next year, local bishops openly siding with traditionalist groups they had not previously been on speaking terms with to signal opposition to the pope, the German bishops conference announcing a plan to approve gay marriage against Vatican disapproval, a looming confrontation over the next Vatican doctrine chief(this is traditionally the de facto number 2 spot) in which that same former head appears to have already vetoed a progressive appointee by making threats with the backing of a double digit number of cardinals, and the American bishops literally making heresy accusations against each other to the media(which is unprecedented). All of this is against a backdrop in which more revelations of sex abuse mishandling, this time mostly with perpetrators in the pope’s inner circle, coming out.
I think Francis does at the core have a solid or at least traditional understanding. There's a couple of things going on: he's a South American Jesuit, he does have the instinct for the pastoral role as the primary one, and he tends to say things off the cuff that the media then take up and amplify as their message (the one about "who am I to judge?" was not about "the gay is okay" and if you read the full context, it's in a specific case that was presented to him in a press interview aboard the Vatican jet, but that's not how it was reported in the papers).
I don't have much personal liking for Francis as his style is completely at odds with my own tendencies, and he does have a liberal streak. But "liberal" is not the same as "progressive" and I think he does believe in things like the divinity of Christ, the Real Presence, etc. He has a taste for the kind of lay devotions that the Spirit of Vatican II crowd looked down their noses at and swept away when in power.
I wish he'd clobber a few of the ones straying off the reservation, but he does believe the job of the Shepherd is to go after the sheep, not drive them further off.
Agree that Francis doesn’t seem personally very progressive(hence why I draw the distinction between liberal and progressive), but he’s definitely increasingly reliant on progressives to do anything and his weakness as a manager is not helped by his tendency to come down like a ton of bricks to his right.
Yeah, that's the Jesuit in him (I was going to say "South American Jesuit" but it's pretty much all the Jebbies everywhere, save for a few reactionary holdouts here and 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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link