I’m quite into Cynthia Bourgeault these days, but mostly because of all the stuff she does to Christianity that isn’t Christian, including a funky law of three metaphysics (not theology), taking Gurdjideff’s wacky cosmology seriously, making Mary Magdalene (almost) as important as Jesus, and leaning heavily on Jesus as a non-dual teacher speaking in narrative code…
(And my wife Siva is Hindu and has always been concerned I’d become “a nutty Christian”. It would be gratuitously husbandly to simultaneously disappoint her and prove her right.)
All that said, the best book I know by far on the lived experience of Christianity is Unapologetic by Francis Spufford. It didn’t quite convert me, but it gave me a pretty good sense of how it would feel to be converted, and I don’t feel anything like it.
Having a personal, *mystical* relationship with Yeshua bin Miriam--or Jesus, if you prefer--is indeed a thing, and probably the sweetest fruit available on the Christianity tree. I'm saying this as a committed Buddhist who spent fours years in the jungle as a monastic ascetic in the late '80's; and who also long ago studied Comparative Religion as an undergrad. Developing a deeply intimate spiritual connection to a departed spiritual master is not a new thing in mystical circles; and is doable by anyone willing to put in the work.
Where Alex is possibly misreading the scene is whether or not--or to what degree--these modern Christian scholars have actual mystical cred; or are just engaging in intellectual masturbation. In the Thai Forest School, Buddhist big shots were generally known as either Practitioners, or Scholars. So the real question to me is whether these modern dudes can actually Walk. Or if they just Talk.
Very good article Alex. The line "claiming one’s Christianity has gained the asymmetric cachet of subcultural transgression—the aura of Cool" says it all!!!. I see it happening to me.
I suggest you pick up Matt Segall @footnotestoplato for a less flattened look. Also he is forming connective tissue in this space to Steiner's Christology. For folks who have accelerated the broadening of an epsito-phenomenlogical and ontological landscape outside this space Jonael Schickler's work inspired by the ultraphenomenolgist Herbert Witzenmann has been of mighty service. Along with this sort of approach and Matt's Whiteheadian infusion I have found many of the tight spaces in your approach have many breath widths between logical progressions. Also I am sure you have watched Jordan and John on the topic. If not that might be helpful. Best
By the way, I’m not sure the premise is sound. I like the post’s way of presenting a road to somewhere hiding in plain sight. But the case for a Christian revival feels anecdotal rather than empirical. It’s mostly still a people in single digits phenomenon as far as I can tell, with each person apparently a proxy for thousands, but that seems unsubstantiated.
It’s not *absolutely nothing* but it’s merely suggestive as confirmatory evidence for those who want the story to be true and thin gruel at best from a more robust empirical standpoint? In those links there is one demographic in one place- 18-29 year olds men in Finland (not UK), an increase in French adult baptisms(that was the most interesting data for me, but you know, the French…) and a temporary and short term increase in the context of an overall sharp fall in one denomination in one part of the US (southern Baptists). I know it’s not your role to do a robust global quantitative analysis or meta-analysis of quantitative sociology of religion, but you haven’t shaken my impression that we are working on anecdote here…
*the downward trend data for American Baptists begins in 1999 while the upward trend begins in about about 2020*. A covid uptick perhaps. Perhaps not. there are certainly likely intensifications of pre-existing Christian affiliation that cannot be tracked. And when we think about the online chatter of nationalism we can assume in uk, most or europe, and US that that signals christian nationalism.
But of course I'm also basing this on personal experience with intellectuals talking far more openly about Christianity as a real solution. If there was data on online chatter I think it would sway you. In the next piece I use Russel Brand's conversion, of course, as the swing post.
Isn’t Pentecostalism the fastest growing faith conversion in South America? Though that’s transitional, as it’s from Catholicism, and could prob also be read as a move in many direction, as Pentecostalism is both more animist and embodied in practice.
Not sure what the point was here exactly... I guess I'll wait for part 2! hopefully you don't just end up eating your tail in the end and calling it a dunk!
The point of part 1 is to question the extent to which arriving at Christianity occurred through a deep contemplative process rather than a confirmation bias.
Trends arent biased tho, people are. So who is guilty here? These are real people with reputations and taking this on isn’t exactly cool like the fonz on a motorcycle smoking a cigarette, it’s Christianity. Ned Flanders
(note: I love all these guys even though I’ve only met a few, so this is brotherly amateur fun)
It feels a bit more like a semantic and aesthetic shift than anything else. My joke about Jordan Hall is “hey, we’ve all been a new Christian,” which is probably only funny to current or former evangelicals.
Personally, I question the internal development of any western intellectual without at least a minimally explored Christology: you’ve never even once contemplated redemption, let alone that you might need a little of it?
I think the deeper question with these guys is still the same as if they concealed or never developed a faith: the individual and personal praxis and courage, and whether they’re deluding themselves and others while drifting into Rasputin/Dugan/Brand-land, or if they’re finding a moral and ethical core to stand against a rising tide? The ones attempting or maintaining a lofty detachment seem essentially the former, and the lack of savvy to have detected that this was always Peterson’s path isn’t encouraging.
For me (I’m not a new Christian), the praxis is easily evident with or without the semantics or public professions: real recognizes real. Limberg is clearly a faithful guy, one who has inspired and engages in daily practice, devotion, and humility. That’s just my embodied at-a-distance read, but not a tough one. Rowson evinces the same, and there are others with a moral core and others who will find one and others who we will discover never had one at all. Such are these times.
But I’d say the sudden adoption of the language and symbology of Christianity is both embarrassingly late for so many Western thinkers, and also possibly an instinctive adaptation to the fast-impending complete rejection of new age/burner aesthetics/attitudes/semantics in general (gen z and alpha are seriously and rightly grossed out), with a bit of Dasha/Dimes Square midlife fantasies thrown in.
Contrary to Rowson's prior musings, intellectuals do not lead the way: young women do. And they've been dumping crystals for rosaries (and standup comedy) for quite a while now, with the same questions of character in play. (There are the Dashas, and then there are the ones with souls.) Middle-aged white men like myself are not the leading edge, though a few of them can track it, and a few of those can recognize it as leadership. But the writing on the wall isn't faint, neither with our times nor with the character of men.
How do I figure out what to believe? I live in a small rural area where evangelical Christianity is prominent. I’m not sure I believe that, but I can’t get away from the idea of some sort of a higher power. I also can’t seem to get rid of the idea of a universal truth. I see people who are spiritual not religious and it’s appealing, but differs so much from person to person.
Interesting...this is something I've been observing and thinking about too. It seems to me the recent celebrity converts are often chaotic types who are unable to tolerate ambiguity for very long and so grasp onto an obsolete religion as a life-preserver, just as they did with Sobriety, Carnivorism, Jungianism and other pseudo-religions.
I'm also noticing that some lesser known wanna-be influencers are identifying a niche in the online space and hopping on the Orthodox Christian bandwagon (the "coolest" Christianity, check out those wild icons bro!) in order to take advantage of the most thirsty audience ever: the Online Christian.
Back in the old days it was struggling rock bands that converted in order to take advantage of the ready-made Christian audience (so desperately thirsty for anything "cool" and Christian), now it seems to be struggling writers / wannabe thoughtleaders.
I've been working toward some kind of post-theist, mythopoetic, mystico-imaginal spiritual practice for a number of years so hearing about the Metamodernism movement is exciting, and I have a lot of new names to check out. My spiritual ancestors are folks like Emerson, James Hillman and Camille Paglia (atheist pagan aestheticism).
(Also: My point in lumping us all into this being that the underlying general cultural bias seems to autosort our investigations in service of the chrisitan answer. Your "transparadigmatic christianity" podcast with jordan as a mimetic example.)
I could've just as easily tagged myself, and did elsewhere in the same spirit. Sorry to see you feel misrepresented, it was more of a wink than anything else.
Good one. And fear not on my behalf.
I’m quite into Cynthia Bourgeault these days, but mostly because of all the stuff she does to Christianity that isn’t Christian, including a funky law of three metaphysics (not theology), taking Gurdjideff’s wacky cosmology seriously, making Mary Magdalene (almost) as important as Jesus, and leaning heavily on Jesus as a non-dual teacher speaking in narrative code…
(And my wife Siva is Hindu and has always been concerned I’d become “a nutty Christian”. It would be gratuitously husbandly to simultaneously disappoint her and prove her right.)
All that said, the best book I know by far on the lived experience of Christianity is Unapologetic by Francis Spufford. It didn’t quite convert me, but it gave me a pretty good sense of how it would feel to be converted, and I don’t feel anything like it.
Ha, yes I remember something about you getting your Hindu name. Thanks for that little slice of window into thinking.
I wouldn't underestimate Peter's grandmother as a figure of power here.
Having a personal, *mystical* relationship with Yeshua bin Miriam--or Jesus, if you prefer--is indeed a thing, and probably the sweetest fruit available on the Christianity tree. I'm saying this as a committed Buddhist who spent fours years in the jungle as a monastic ascetic in the late '80's; and who also long ago studied Comparative Religion as an undergrad. Developing a deeply intimate spiritual connection to a departed spiritual master is not a new thing in mystical circles; and is doable by anyone willing to put in the work.
Where Alex is possibly misreading the scene is whether or not--or to what degree--these modern Christian scholars have actual mystical cred; or are just engaging in intellectual masturbation. In the Thai Forest School, Buddhist big shots were generally known as either Practitioners, or Scholars. So the real question to me is whether these modern dudes can actually Walk. Or if they just Talk.
Very good article Alex. The line "claiming one’s Christianity has gained the asymmetric cachet of subcultural transgression—the aura of Cool" says it all!!!. I see it happening to me.
Enjoyed as much as I enjoy Peter. Keep chewing.
I suggest you pick up Matt Segall @footnotestoplato for a less flattened look. Also he is forming connective tissue in this space to Steiner's Christology. For folks who have accelerated the broadening of an epsito-phenomenlogical and ontological landscape outside this space Jonael Schickler's work inspired by the ultraphenomenolgist Herbert Witzenmann has been of mighty service. Along with this sort of approach and Matt's Whiteheadian infusion I have found many of the tight spaces in your approach have many breath widths between logical progressions. Also I am sure you have watched Jordan and John on the topic. If not that might be helpful. Best
Love mathew.
Love Cynthia and Matthew lol
By the way, I’m not sure the premise is sound. I like the post’s way of presenting a road to somewhere hiding in plain sight. But the case for a Christian revival feels anecdotal rather than empirical. It’s mostly still a people in single digits phenomenon as far as I can tell, with each person apparently a proxy for thousands, but that seems unsubstantiated.
Check the first 3 hyperlinks in the article. Recent baptism numbers are markedly up.
It’s not *absolutely nothing* but it’s merely suggestive as confirmatory evidence for those who want the story to be true and thin gruel at best from a more robust empirical standpoint? In those links there is one demographic in one place- 18-29 year olds men in Finland (not UK), an increase in French adult baptisms(that was the most interesting data for me, but you know, the French…) and a temporary and short term increase in the context of an overall sharp fall in one denomination in one part of the US (southern Baptists). I know it’s not your role to do a robust global quantitative analysis or meta-analysis of quantitative sociology of religion, but you haven’t shaken my impression that we are working on anecdote here…
*the downward trend data for American Baptists begins in 1999 while the upward trend begins in about about 2020*. A covid uptick perhaps. Perhaps not. there are certainly likely intensifications of pre-existing Christian affiliation that cannot be tracked. And when we think about the online chatter of nationalism we can assume in uk, most or europe, and US that that signals christian nationalism.
But of course I'm also basing this on personal experience with intellectuals talking far more openly about Christianity as a real solution. If there was data on online chatter I think it would sway you. In the next piece I use Russel Brand's conversion, of course, as the swing post.
Isn’t Pentecostalism the fastest growing faith conversion in South America? Though that’s transitional, as it’s from Catholicism, and could prob also be read as a move in many direction, as Pentecostalism is both more animist and embodied in practice.
Not sure what the point was here exactly... I guess I'll wait for part 2! hopefully you don't just end up eating your tail in the end and calling it a dunk!
The point of part 1 is to question the extent to which arriving at Christianity occurred through a deep contemplative process rather than a confirmation bias.
Do you think Jordan Hall falls under the confirmation bias side?
I think the general trend does. As for the particular case of Jordan, not sure, as i havent gollowed him closely enough.
Trends arent biased tho, people are. So who is guilty here? These are real people with reputations and taking this on isn’t exactly cool like the fonz on a motorcycle smoking a cigarette, it’s Christianity. Ned Flanders
(note: I love all these guys even though I’ve only met a few, so this is brotherly amateur fun)
It feels a bit more like a semantic and aesthetic shift than anything else. My joke about Jordan Hall is “hey, we’ve all been a new Christian,” which is probably only funny to current or former evangelicals.
Personally, I question the internal development of any western intellectual without at least a minimally explored Christology: you’ve never even once contemplated redemption, let alone that you might need a little of it?
I think the deeper question with these guys is still the same as if they concealed or never developed a faith: the individual and personal praxis and courage, and whether they’re deluding themselves and others while drifting into Rasputin/Dugan/Brand-land, or if they’re finding a moral and ethical core to stand against a rising tide? The ones attempting or maintaining a lofty detachment seem essentially the former, and the lack of savvy to have detected that this was always Peterson’s path isn’t encouraging.
For me (I’m not a new Christian), the praxis is easily evident with or without the semantics or public professions: real recognizes real. Limberg is clearly a faithful guy, one who has inspired and engages in daily practice, devotion, and humility. That’s just my embodied at-a-distance read, but not a tough one. Rowson evinces the same, and there are others with a moral core and others who will find one and others who we will discover never had one at all. Such are these times.
But I’d say the sudden adoption of the language and symbology of Christianity is both embarrassingly late for so many Western thinkers, and also possibly an instinctive adaptation to the fast-impending complete rejection of new age/burner aesthetics/attitudes/semantics in general (gen z and alpha are seriously and rightly grossed out), with a bit of Dasha/Dimes Square midlife fantasies thrown in.
Contrary to Rowson's prior musings, intellectuals do not lead the way: young women do. And they've been dumping crystals for rosaries (and standup comedy) for quite a while now, with the same questions of character in play. (There are the Dashas, and then there are the ones with souls.) Middle-aged white men like myself are not the leading edge, though a few of them can track it, and a few of those can recognize it as leadership. But the writing on the wall isn't faint, neither with our times nor with the character of men.
How do I figure out what to believe? I live in a small rural area where evangelical Christianity is prominent. I’m not sure I believe that, but I can’t get away from the idea of some sort of a higher power. I also can’t seem to get rid of the idea of a universal truth. I see people who are spiritual not religious and it’s appealing, but differs so much from person to person.
Interesting...this is something I've been observing and thinking about too. It seems to me the recent celebrity converts are often chaotic types who are unable to tolerate ambiguity for very long and so grasp onto an obsolete religion as a life-preserver, just as they did with Sobriety, Carnivorism, Jungianism and other pseudo-religions.
I'm also noticing that some lesser known wanna-be influencers are identifying a niche in the online space and hopping on the Orthodox Christian bandwagon (the "coolest" Christianity, check out those wild icons bro!) in order to take advantage of the most thirsty audience ever: the Online Christian.
Back in the old days it was struggling rock bands that converted in order to take advantage of the ready-made Christian audience (so desperately thirsty for anything "cool" and Christian), now it seems to be struggling writers / wannabe thoughtleaders.
I've been working toward some kind of post-theist, mythopoetic, mystico-imaginal spiritual practice for a number of years so hearing about the Metamodernism movement is exciting, and I have a lot of new names to check out. My spiritual ancestors are folks like Emerson, James Hillman and Camille Paglia (atheist pagan aestheticism).
(Also: My point in lumping us all into this being that the underlying general cultural bias seems to autosort our investigations in service of the chrisitan answer. Your "transparadigmatic christianity" podcast with jordan as a mimetic example.)
I could've just as easily tagged myself, and did elsewhere in the same spirit. Sorry to see you feel misrepresented, it was more of a wink than anything else.
I think i meant this in a more casual way than youre taking it. But I'll remove you from it, I meant no distress.
Thanks, mate. Had we the chance to dig into the context of it over a beer or coffee, I think you’d chuckle at the irony. ;)