It's realistic if you already know you are courageous. I went and peacefully held a sign today so that I could say that I have spoken out and that I am not just giving in to quietism. Facing the fear of social rejection was a meaningful step for me. I don't expect an outcome other than social blowback. I would venture that most people here have already done these sorts of things in the past, but I felt like it was an intermediate step that I couldn't skip.
It's not nihilistic if, in living in the world, but not of the world, you live by the Gold Standard God laid down in the Gospel and apply it in how you conduct business, etc., in your life. E.g. the Quaker model. Make people want to associate with you, not because of feels, but because (for lack of a shorter way to say it) you've sincerely and humbly aligned yourself with the Tao of Christ.
The interview discusses going back to Luther and Calvin. I think they’re the wrong place to stop at. I think we need to go back to the first and second century church to see how they lived in pagan Rome. And I think your answer to how to respond is actually the best way, though it’s not particularly marketable to our megachurch influenced evangelicals.
I guess the evangelize part of evangelicals is the hard part to let go of with respect to the doing! If we can simply live out the beattitudes, that would be more effective, echoing your points. It’s not wrong to feed the poor, but when it becomes so programmed and we get detached from doing our own part just living life.
We are headed back to Pagan Ephesus and Rome at rocket speed. All of the evils of society are returning with it. Jesus said He would build His church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. Until He returns, and then the Day of Judgement.
Why can't God use chance? Especially since there are a handful of Biblical references to God doing so?
I don't believe for a minute that chance and intelligent design are mutually exclusive. In fact, from where I sit, I think that an intelligent designer who made use of chance as just one of many tools is VERY intelligent indeed.
But God did create a universe in which random chance operates on several levels, including within the basic structure of matter (but it is not ALL randomness, obviously). So, if this random chance is not in some way from God, where did it come from? If we were to deny it came from God, we would have to abandon Christianity for some form of Manichaeism. I'm not doing that.
I would like to point out that that many have believed that math in a sense comes from God, and there are mathematics that make randomness orderly. So, this is another way in which God and randomness are arguably not exclusive.
Without quantum randomness we would not exist: it's absolutely necessary for the reactions that build atomic nuclei and allow for fusion that powers stars.
So, drawing lots is not invoking chance? I think it certainly is. And so I am just as certain that God can express His will via chance. The Apostles obviously thought so, otherwise they would not have done what they did.
I don't agree that random chance took place there at all. May have appeared that way to human reckoning, but God is not limited by or to human perception.
YHWH controls the individual orbits of every single quark in the universe simultaneously. Our little pea brains are too feeble to even understand what I just said. There is no “chance” at the cosmic level. Humans talk about “chance” because our minds are too feeble to grasp reality. We simply approximate reality using “chance” as a shortcut. People can not handle the full truth in this life. In the New Earth we will see more clearly and fully, but even then, we can never attain full understanding. King Jesus will be with us in person, in His glorified body, to love us and guide us. I have no idea what that will look like. It simply doesn’t matter on this side of the 2nd Advent.
But OTOH, we have to account for human free will, and so we can't go too far down the determinism road. The randomness we do observe has been linked by some theologians to free will:
(EDIT in asterisks) I came across a very interesting comment once, in a discussion of *megachurches and celebrity pastors* (very long story.) Your comment reminded me of that one:
""...As far as things go spiritually, I have delved deep into the rabbit hole that is Modern Culture and the more I find, the more I become convinced that the (sic) True Christianity is hidden in the cracks and crannies, away from the public eyes. I accept this as reality, as Jesus said that many will be deceived and few will be saved."
I think there's more, but that's the relevant part anyway.
Garry Nolan and Ross Coulthard are perhaps the smartest, most reliable commentators in this space, well worth listening to.
I've had this experience of religious visitation, very similar to experiences described by Diana Pasulka.
I did not really consider that this was in any way tied to the UAP phenomenon, but now I wonder.
What I actually saw, was a feminine presence, a blinding white light entering the room. First, I felt like something hot was radiating at me from the wall behind me (I was washing dishes in my flat in London, no window on that wall), like the sun was shining on me.
There was this incredibly bright white light, coming from an orb. It looked like a star had descended from heaven and later I realised this is where we get a lot of our religious symbolism and myths from.
In any ways, this being of light was the Queen of Heaven, incredibly benevolent and loving, able to touch me (which felt like a real human touch) for some hands-on-healing, which I badly needed at the time.
I now realise that she was higher-dimensional (the orb) and non-dual (the pure, undifferentiated light of the godhead). I do not believe her visitation was visible to the physical senses, it was far subtler, like the light, bemevolence and love she radiated was from a higher dimension. Her appearance felt like a descent from above, from a higher dimension, which I guess you could call Heaven. It certainly felt like it.
I wonder if scientists will ever be able to reconcile and explain religious visitations like that with higher-dimensional physics and the UAP phenomenon.
I feel that the physical beings that appear especially in alien abductions, such as the grey aliens, are very likely demonic. Beings of pure light that descend from heaven (angels, you could call them, or perhaps Elohim) are emanations from the Godhead, different forms of the divine basically. They are not physical, but beings of pure light.
$4000 to walk around in public wearing diving goggles and throwing your hands around in spastic motions like you're one of Jerry's kids... the rich truly are different than you and I.
I remember an old SCTV sketch in which Rick Moranis (or maybe it was Martin Short) played a video/virtual reality geek (to the extent that there was “virtual reality” back in the late 70’s and early 80’s) who accidentally stumbled outside and was amazed at the quality of the shapes, colours and sounds - in the real world!
SCTV! That brings back memories. We used to go see them perform live in Toronto back in the day. As great as the TV show was, it was nothing compared to seeing them live. Sometimes at the end of the night, they'd ask the audience to suggest :
a- a situation
b- a location
c- maybe a well known personality/politician of the day.
Five minutes later they'd come back onstage and do an improvised skit on all of the above.
Yes, the whole “Celebrity Blow Up” series was good. I’ve also, as a Canadian, always been partial as well to Bob and Doug (at least in the “Great White North” series!)
The most important reason for the rejection of the Benedict Option among leaders in the evangelical community is that they would have to admit that what we've been doing in terms of discipleship has been an abject failure over the last 25-50 years, and to own that would mean to own their responsibility in allowing it to happen.
I wouldn't be surprised if you start to see more interest in the Benedict Option because Aaron's book coming out on the heels of "The Great Dechurching" is going to lead to a lot of introspection as to what we need to do for folks to hang onto and live out their faith in a culture where doing so is much more challenging than the one in which our established church leaders were raised.
It's interesting to consider that "Live Not By Lies" is more recent, and sold more than 2x the number of copies that "The Benedict Option" did, yet "The Benedict Option" is the book that comes up these days in conversations more, at least among people who ask me about it. Not sure why that is.
Perhaps because the Benedict Option introduced your thinking in this area? And it was a bit of a shock to people? Plus at the time of publication it was not as clear to many that we are in negative world. Just guesses on my part.
Think of the BenOp as your version of the first Velvet Underground album. As the story goes, only a thousand people bought the album but they all went on to start bands of their own.
I’ll give my Protestant pastor take on why they want to talk about it now. They understand now.
When the Benedict Option came out, I bought a copy for each of my elders and it didn’t get traction with them. They just didn’t think it was that bad as you argued.
Post- covid and the mainstreaming of woke, people get it. Homeschooling in Covid was an eye-opener for many. Now they want to go back and talk about what they are dealing with.
You were the canary in the coal mine and many didn’t want to believe the news. Many still don’t, but the evidence is getting overwhelming.
You're absolutely right. I'd also add that "The Benedict Option" speaks to non-quantifiable things - discipleship and spiritual formation. The modern, educated, middle-class evangelical is preoccupied with numbers - the church budget, attendees at worship, etc. Things that can't be laid out on a spreadsheet make us nervous. In many evangelical churches, things are still "fine" (i.e. numbers are stable or increasing, lots of programs masquerading as ministries, etc.) and the leaders naively think that things will always be this way.
I think we are doing a gross disservice to current students of seminaries and Bible colleges by not warning them that most of them are going to probably need a side-gig or even a day job, because the days of multi-staff churches are coming to an end.
Great interview! For one, Renn offers a convincing diagnosis of the oft-repeated misreading of Benedict Option as “Head for the Hills Option”. His explanation re: Evangelicals makes sense. As for the obstinacy of Catholics and others in their misreading of the book, Rod’s probably right that it’s mainly a matter of *not* reading the book.
This interview relates to something Sethu and I got into in yesterday’s thread. My observation was that Christians in our current America--those who seek to engage with the culture or even speak openly about the faith--are stuck between Scylla and Charybdis.
If you don’t remember The Odyssey, here’s the reference. Odysseus must guide his ship through a narrow strait abutted on each side by a cliff. Midway through the strait he will pass between two monsters positioned directly across from each other. Up in the cave on one side rests Scylla, a huge crablike creature that, if he passes too close, will scurry down the cliff wall and devour a handful of his men. Across from Scylla, at the base of the other cliff, swirls a whirlpool caused by Charybdis, an octopus-like creature that will suck his ship down and devour it. Plot spoiler: Odysseus opts to pass near Scylla, losing some men but saving the ship.
What are the Scylla and Charybdis between which American Christians must navigate?
Scylla:
To take the Culture Warrior approach is to sail near Scylla. The Christian who speaks forthrightly about the faith and, say, authentic Christian sexual anthropology will suffer attack. As a huge crab-like creature with multiple heads, Scylla is rather like the online hit squad that will appear to destroy the career of any Christian who steps out of line in public.
My own take on those who fight as culture warriors is mixed. Why? The problem is that many of them suffer two related syndromes: 1) they often end up driven by anger, and 2) their focus on sexual sin in society (which is what usually motivates these warriors) often leads them to neglect the sins they themselves are guilty of (viz., for one, the anger that drives them). I've seen this cluster many times, from many Christians, who get prodded further and further by what they see, and … well, they lose necessary perspective. Their anger and desire to counter-attack the assault that's come from mainstream America becomes its own risk. It risks separating them from grace.
Sethu agrees on this, though he seems more solidly against the cultural warriors than I am. He sees that at the end of the day, they are not evangelizing, but pushing away.
So is the Christian in our American present simply to abandon even stating Christian teaching on sex and marriage? I’d say No. It is a matter of balance and timing. Wisdom. And recognizing that we are not in a position to legislate Christian teaching.
Charybdis:
Charybdis is the whirlpool swirled by a voracious giant octopus that will swallow the ship and all on board. In my metaphor here, it’s the Seeker-Sensitive/Cultural-Engagement Christians who sail near Charybdis. Why? Because their focus on the faith as a subjective way out, as a "path" toward a kind of wholeness or healing, ends up making the faith something other than Christianity. If we stress "God is love" and “Who am I to judge?” and "progressive values" and a kind of pseudo-mystical community of mutual back-rubbing, we may bring others closer this way, but we are already setting up MTG in these others' souls. And of course this is what many many of our churches now set up, rather than Christianity.
One ends up with: “God wants me to be my best self. God would never discourage me from being me when I reach for that thing which is really me. That would be MEAN. God is not MEAN.”
How does any actual Christian even begin to address this mindset without being "mean"?
“God is love” is the whole of the Gospel they will read, and of course “love” is rewritten as they see fit. “Narrow is the gate” has been expunged from their Gospel. Also, “Go and sin no more” is always cut from the end of the narrative.
Of course the reason Charybdis is courted in American churches is because 21st-century Americans simply cannot tolerate anything but affirmation. The Holy of Holies is the Authentic Desiring Self. And Christianity must bow to this truer divinity, or … be mean. To be mean is to be false. By definition. If Christ is not sitting there stroking Narcissus' shoulder and saying, "You handsome boy!" then it simply can't be Christ. According to MTG.
This is in my view the very real risk of sailing near Charybdis. The ship, in this case Christianity, is taken down and disassembled into the swirling muck of our culture's infinite narcissism. The god it evangelizes for is not Christ, but the Self.
So these are the two monsters. How to navigate between them? Not sure what the wisest, most Christian solution to our dilemma is, other than living by example. In other words, our own closeness to Christ is likely to bring others closer. But that means not succumbing to Charybdian lies, while also not letting ourselves be dominated by Scyllan anger.
Sethu is more wary of Scylla, I'm a bit more wary of Charybdis. Odysseus, of course, took his knocks from Scylla. What about Renn and Dreher? I think their answers would be mixed.
Yeah, for me, mixed. For me, a big challenge is not to be overcome by anger. People who know me personally know that I'm not an angry guy. But that isn't my online persona, and I don't intend for it to be that way.
Me too, my persona in writing tends to come off as angrier. But even so, I have the same challenge with anger at times. I've often thought that, even in practical terms, it's lucky for me I'm a Christian.
If there was ever a time in your life when you or any other believer was not a Christian, then I would say: try to vividly remember and imagine that headspace again, and then ask yourself, "Would my past self have listened to my present self and found him persuasive?" And if the answer is in the negative, then you should wonder why you think your present self will be compelling to other heathens when he would not even have gotten the ear of your past self.
Thinking in these terms always helps me realize how amnesiac we are about the actual paths that we have walked.
Also, I would note that no one ever subjectively thinks that they believe in an ideology; to the believer, it is simply reality. The wokies are quite certain that what they perceive is reality, and that the rest of us are being obstinate and perverse in our refusal to see it. Now, of course I don't believe the Gospel is an ideology—but to a heathen, getting yelled at about Christianity would be subjectively indistinguishable from what we experience when we get harangued by people who insist we're bigots for believing a boy can't turn into a girl.
So, if an angry person, apparently wrapped in an ideology that I don't care about and do not even take seriously, started yelling about it, I would think: "You don't know me, your neurotic ravings have nothing to do with me, please cease and desist." And if said ravings had to do with sex, then I would be all the more convinced that the person is quite disturbed and has all sorts of personal issues that they have not bothered to address. So the question is: even if you are convinced you're not this person, how would you convey that to the heathen?
So, while I do think you're correct about the threat of Charybdis in our culture, I don't think Scylla is really a live option. In my view, what needs to happen is for people who seek healing to somehow immanently come to the realization that MTD is fraudulent and that real healing is challenging, might well hurt a little, requires repentance and sacrifice, and all that good stuff. But they must come to see this *from the inside*, and not as an external imposition, which could only seem ideological and arbitrary at this point.
There were years when I wasn't a believer, and took up a somewhat anti-Christian stance, but some of those years I was literally a teen. Jumping forward to my 20s, would I have listened to my current self? Sure, it's a good question. In my case I probably wouldn't have agreed with my current self, but would have given my current self a hearing. But I'm a weirdo. Already at 20, I would listen to anyone I could find who'd read a lot. So it's not parallel to the case for most people.
I was mid-20s when I became a believer, though a rather unorthodox one. A seeker.
I do think you're right that a vast swath of people, now across the American age spectrum, won't even listen to talk of sexual ethics from Christians. But this anathema may be breaking somewhat, as many of these people are being shocked into rethinking their priors thanks to what they face in the latter developments of LGBTQ dogma, especially regarding the trans movement. It's a slowly shifting terrain.
The other thing that is shifting it is the increasing brokenness. More and more people, as they end up shipwrecked in the Kool-Aid sea, are going to be questioning what went wrong. But here too, I agree with you, coming in with heavy-handed condemnation of the depravity and sin of American sexual mores--it isn't going to work. Which is why I'm also wary of approaching Scylla, certainly as a strategy.
I think we're all wearing ideological blinders, even well-catechized Christians, but my bar for what counts as ideology is very low. Ideology is pervasive. We are raised in a culture, therefore we are products of ideology. Christianity liberates from ideology, but there's no Christian culture that's gotten it right, because, again, we're in history, fallen. No community of Christians can expect to get it precisely right. At best we approach what the Kingdom is. At least while we're in the muddle.
It's this pervasiveness of ideology, and the toxic blindness of the American mainstream, that makes me more wary of Charybdis than Scylla. Because ideology can recast everything, especially for those, like our compatriots, who've never learned to think. Because they've never had anything like a real liberal education. Even, and maybe even especially, the hordes now graduating from our universities. It is "My Truth" and woke or woke-adjacent dogma across the board.
Which is why I think it very very hard to evangelize in the current West, perhaps especially in the Anglosphere. It's better to focus on creating resistant, thick communities of the faithful and, living the Gospel as best we can, wait for the shipwrecked to come to us.
Yes, people will have to see some glimmer of the truth "from the inside", it's not going to be imposed from the outside, but "the inside" cannot be flattered as a means to getting them to see that glimmer. That's the risk of Charybdis. They've already been flattered enough.
When the MTD Christian says with that familiar lilt, "God loves me AS I AM," what's your best answer? Curious.
Maybe just a sardonic, "Okay, then—do it your way and see how that works out for you." I don't typically try to talk with people across axiomatic differences, given that there isn't enough shared ground for communion. And if they don't know that they are wounded and in need of healing, then what hope is there? Vaya con Dios, MTD Christian. Maybe the Holy Ghost will shock and shake and shatter them into developing some semblance of self-awareness and wisdom—if they're fortunate. If He really doesn't like them, then He'll just condemn them to remain their own oblivious selves.
Let's not forget the "Once saved, always saved!" school of Christianity which seems to develop an immunity a mile thick to any sense of need for self-correction.
That's wrong, Eve. The Bible teaches eternal security. It also promises "chastening" ( "child training" in koine Greek ) for every true believer. The writer to the Hebrews states that those who claim to be Christian but are not being chastened are bastards, not genuine sons of God.
It's one thing for us to be disgusted by the phonies. I have a first cousin who is as fraudulent a man as anyone could imagine, Elder Don, the smiling sociopath with a twinkle in his eye. Who wouldn't want to attend the same church as such a delightful man?
But please, let's not defame the Lordship of Christ, or, for that matter, our brothers and sisters in Christ who may not be making the progress in sanctification which we think they should. We can't know their past agonies, their vulnerabilities, their terrors.
I've always thought that's one of the many holes below the water line in the Calvinist ship: why bother trying to be a good person? You can't be saved by being good or condemned by being evil, since everything has already been decided. In reality, it is a type of nihilism.
There is at least one cracked novel from 18th century Scotland which is based on that premise. It's in The Pile, or rather, one of several in my place. I haven't had the interest to read it, though, because the premise is a misunderstanding of the point, as is your comment, Sethu.
Calvinists believe in the perseverance of the saints, which means what I was saying to Eve: genuine Christians can expect chastening, "child training," and in the cases of Christians who think they can get away with licentiousness of whatever kind, a lot of knuckle whacking and in the hard cases, possibly some bashing with a hickory stick.
The melodramatic mind's impulse may be to think in terms of auto wrecks, unexpected job losses, rare cancers, all manner of supercharged dramaturgy, and I do know of pastors who have taught the possibility of chastening in those terms. But even they would agree that it's much likelier to appear in misery of soul.
Consider the prodigal son. His life was a country song, and he wasn't enjoying it. After the buildup of enough misery, he decided to return to the Father's house.
Your comment carries with it the drag of a works based mindset. Aphorisms tend to leave me cold, but sometimes, their pungency and brevity makes them useful: we are saved by faith alone, not by works, but true faith will never be alone; it will always show itself in works.
Excellent analysis. I would add that the most fervent culture warriors, in addition to often becoming overwhelmed with anger, also often prove to have feet of clay when it comes to sexual immorality (as in the appalling number of clerical sexual abuse scandals in churches from the Catholics to the Southern Baptists, etc.). But there are more sins in our society than those.
I never ceased to be amazed at the amazing rapacity, i.e., greed and envy, which our culture encourages, as in this actual "debate" from a legislative assembly:
”Kids shouldn’t get free lunch at school because their parents should be able to feed them!”
”But their parents can’t afford to feed them, that’s why we need free lunches.”
”Well the parents shouldn’t have kids if they can’t feed them!”
"But in the meantime, the kids are there and hungry!"
"Not our problem. That's on the parents."
Sigh...
And I for one, whose husband is very old and has multiple health issues, remember when Covid began and politicians (like the Lt. Gov of Texas) and economists proposed that the elderly should be just willing to die quickly so that the economy would stay open.
Dan Patrick, former weatherman for KHOU TV, the CBS affiliate in Houston.
Do you know how Dan got to be A Wheel? In the mid 80s, he and several friends bought a third rate AM radio station in Houston. In 1990, they were offered an unknown named Rush Limbaugh. Dan's already very good political instinct was to grab him. Within three or four years, they'd made enough money that they were able to buy KPRC AM, which was one of the city's two longest running AM radio stations. And Dan was on his way to Valhalla.
Dan is more powerful than you think, because the Texas Constitution makes the Lieutenant Governor the possessor of more actual power than the Governor.
Bob Bullock. There should be a movie about Bullock. He was Lieutenant Governor of Texas throughout the 1990s. Bullock never cared a damn about getting to be Governor. He was much more interested in bringing as much fairness to government as possible. It's too bad that death has hamstrung his political career.
Those wily Texas boys, knowing they'd have Yankee governors forced on them indefinitely, rigged it that way in the Texas version of the Reconstruction era Constitution which each state was required to draft.
Please pray for me readers, as I am going out to peacefully stand with a sign in public. I have never done this before. But accepting that Christians are a minority, why not? I have lost the desire to keep up appearances with people who refuse to see that things are tough. It's a decision in the context of comparing Aaron Renn's book, see the opening examples, and the Benedict Option.
I read Aaron Renn's book right away, and I was able to reflect anew on the protestant friends who have all (how could it be all of them?) gone squishy. They indeed have too much status. I'm a Catholic convert for many years now and I'm also trying to get some lower status protestant friends at the moment.
The book referencing Digby Baltzer reminded me of the lesson of Puritan Boston and Quaker Philadelphia. Populism has it's place but it typically can't build much. I hadn't thought of this in years and the characteristics of leaders in Quaker Philadelphia fits Trump. It helps to put it in perspective in a way I hadn't thought of in years.
You can see why we have the word, "martyr." And if one isn't physically killed for the Faith, Christ, in crowding us out of our lives to His advantage, is killing us in a manner of speaking, isn't He?
If I hadn't encountered a certain amount of death to self I wouldn't be ready to stop publicly caring what people think. That is really what I am doing by speaking up. I am ready to stop hiding my life under a bushel for fear of being judged. People have to see a difference in a Christian life to be attracted to it. Fear isn't attractive, but it is sometimes prudent. I am pushing fear away. Other people will have other points of struggle.
The odd thing is I am 2/3 of the way through his book and so far he’s just does not seem as strong as he is in this interview. I sure hope he finishes strong. I’ve been disappointed so far.
I'm almost done with the book and while I'm not disappointed, I understand what you mean.
I intend to give Renn's book a good review. Yet, I'd describe Aaron's versus Rod's writing styles this way.........reading Aaron is like having a conversation with someone dressed in a suit tie while drinking a nice cup of tea. Reading Rod (particularly this blog) is like talking with someone after multiple beers while that person holds your shirt collar and talks loudly with his face a foot away from yours. IMHO there's a place for both styles.
By the way, it would be fantastic to have whichever drink and talk with either of them!
Hm, that might be a bit much, given that the standard for criminal conviction is "beyond reasonable doubt". The person could still be liable in terms of the civil standard of preponderance of evidence, in which case he would lose a defamation suit.
I guess the underlying issue is that defamation is not classified as a crime, and that it would be difficult to change that without exerting a serious chilling effect on people with legitimate claims.
yep. Any number of guilty-as-sin people have walked because the state could not prove their guilt beyond that reasonable doubt standard. Good grief, was the OJ trial now so long ago people have forgotten it?
The Simpson case involved jury nullification. Johnnie Cochran was a very effective lawyer as well. I occasionally would have people complain that Cochran used "mean" and "dishonorable" tactics. I would shoot back that it was Cochran's job to have Simpson acquitted.
Yes, it's a lawyer's job to get his client off if he can, or to cut the best plea deal if that's unlikely.
I wouldn't call it "jury nullification". The trial was a farce, but there was some (highly implausible, IMO) things introduced to sow doubt that Simpson was the culprit. "If the glove don't fit you must acquit."
My wife and I were on our last night of vacation during the "slow chase." I asked my wife something to the effect, "What the hell are you watching?" What little did I know that OJ Simpson spectacular would be a media circus for a whole year.
I very much agree. If you're going to publicize a claim of a crime committed against you then you should be pursuing that through the legal system (of course there may a complication if the act was many years ago and the statute of limitations prevents charges). Trial by gossip should be nixed.
And The Atlantic needs to bleed for its craven collapse as well. Not sure how it would be described legally, but piling on with a slanderer ought to cost something.
I need to preface this comment by expressing that I am an evangelical and mostly interact with evangelicals. Aaron's comment about how the title of the Benedict Option book and the picture on the front could have led people to immediately generate an opinion of the book's thesis is interesting to me. It is a revelation about why some of my own friends developed their negative opinion's about the book without reading it. I wonder if the Re-enchantment book is at the same risk? The term re-enchantment will have the same effect, I fear, as the Benedict Option title did because of the sense of "woo-woo" that evangelicals get from it. I believe Aaron was brilliant in using terms for his framework that were both benign but clear in their meaning. Positive, neutral and negative are all words that won't immediately cause someone to turn away. Is there a similar term to re-enchantment that can be used in the title that will evoke the same meaning but not generate an immediate opinion? I ask the question because I believe re-enchantment is especially needed in the evangelical sphere, but I fear the word will cause them to turn away. I suspect the people who will be drawn by the term are those who are, in essence, your choir. The people who will react negatively to the term are those who most need to read the book. So, is there another term that can be used even if it is later defined in the book as re-enchantment with the goal of hooking people to begin reading rather than rejecting it by judging the cover?
I am Catholic, not evangelical, but I appreciate your point. My first thought was something like "Into the Deep" (referring to Luke 5:4.) It would appeal to the evangelical mind because of the Scripture reference, without alienating other Christians, and "casting your nets into the deep" is a good metaphor (I think) for living in an enchanted creation. But a title like this would also come with its own problems, misunderstandings, and confusions.
Funny, "Into The Deep" was one of the first titles I thought about! I'm not sure why they didn't choose it. it's a good one. The title now is "Living In Wonder". I preferred "Into The Mystic" in the end, but that was rejected. Me and my early Van Morrison stuff!
I like "Into the Deep" much more than "Living in Wonder". The former risks sounding like a thriller, but the latter risks sounding like a self-help book.
Hmm, are they still debating the title? Important decision!
My vote's with *Theophany*. Eric's right that *Living in Wonder* risks sounding like a New Agey self-help book that Oprah might enjoy, sort of in the vein of *Eat, Pray, Love*.
My impression, as if it mattered: Benedict Option - Live Not By Lies - are great titles that become statements unto themselves, condensed quotes for a world of meaning to support or oppose. As for 'Living in Wonder' that could be the title of any number of self-help books, or about Disney, or really many topics, its so 'blah' and generic sounding to me - it would never draw me in unless I knew who wrote the book (and I do). 'Into the Deep' - that has more potential - 'a deep life', 'deep living', 'deep theology' etc... 'Mystic' might carry a lot of baggage in the protestant world.
‘Into the Mystic’ is my absolute FAVORITE song. I would read it based on that title alone, because I’m a sucker for Morrison and would immediately take it as a sign from the universe that it is indeed confirmed as the best song. I digress. I am evangelical and I know my brethren would likely reject the word ‘mystic’ as woo woo. Sadly. These other two titles would be much more easily accepted. I’m positive my opinion is needed here. ;)
Rod, if you read this, I’d like you to know that two weeks ago I started a Benedict Option book discussion in my home with about 20 other people from my tiny country church here in Oregon. I’m glad we’re reading it now versus in 2017. I don’t think this group was ready until after 2020’s events. Many are wary with references to Orthodoxy or Catholicism and I keep trying to bring them back to view the bigger picture. I hope this group gets there - most have not read anything like this. I am so thankful you wrote it. I’m late to the party and only started reading you about 6 months ago. But, I really really like your brain. Looking forward to ‘Into the Mystic’. ;)
I’ve often been tempted to get a small tattoo with the lyric ‘younger than the sun’ as homage to this song. But alas, I live in western Oregon - a land where tattoos are more common than teeth (thanks, meth). Also, knowing that approximately 827,342 other humans likely also possess the same tattoo really resets my perspective. My non-conformist (yet sensitive) heart would break the moment I see someone else with the same ink. Unmarked, I remain --
Well, actually there was a "celestial phenomena" in 1561 in Nuremberg, where "witnesses observed hundreds of spheres, cylinders, and other odd-shaped objects that moved erratically overhead". And on January 25, 1878, the Denison Daily News printed an article in which John Martin, a local farmer, had reported seeing a large, dark, circular object resembling a balloon flying "at wonderful speed". And there is a manuscript illustration of the 10th-century Japanese "The Tale of the Bamboo Cutter", that depicts a round flying machine similar to a flying saucer. (But there was a volcano erupting at the time, so who knows.)
But I would say that for the most part, however, someone had to invent a flying machine of some kind before others could imagine they saw one. On the other hand, the "knowledge" of people flying through the woods, or becoming werewolves, or vampires, or zombies all go back a long, long way. The darkness has always been out there. It just takes different appearances over time and culture.
I hold that flying cigars and such could well be dramatic cloud formations - heaven knows, the climate up here goes from one extreme to the other, and when the clouds do chew up the sky they come in all sorts of formations and colors. BTW, It's the green ones that should scare you down to the basement.
People saw other things-- dragons for example. Chariots of the gods. We started interpreting these things as alien spacecraft under the influence of 19th century science fiction (Jules Verne. HG Wells)
That's not true. Read Jacques Vallee on this. He theorizes that whatever the UFO phenomenon is, it is a modern, 20c articulation of bizarre mythological events and creatures that have appeared in various cultures throughout human history. Vallee's conjecture is that these are the same entities manifesting in a guise to speak to the imaginations of people in the age of science fiction and high tech.
I'm going to have to agree, Jon. The UFO stuff seems like so much humbug, and people falling over each other about this--good, intelligent people. But I don't see it as very believable.
I wonder how much you know about what is actually on the record about this stuff. I didn't give a fig about it till last fall, when I discovered, much to my shock, that there is WAY more known about this than I surmised. Why do you suppose the big Stanford conference on this stuff late last year drew generals and admirals and intelligence world people? Far as I can tell, nobody who is well informed about it all will say for sure what this phenomenon is, because they don't really know. But most people at that level do NOT believe that it's about creatures from other planets.
I think the principle here is simply that extraordinary empirical claims require extraordinary evidence, and I'm just not seeing it. Why are they all interested?—well, it could be a psyop for all we know. I assume you wouldn't put that past them. And I'm not sure why you believe that these specific government officials have their heads screwed on straight, given what we know about the rest of the regime.
It remains the case that there is a distinct lack of hard physical evidence, as opposed to people saying they saw this-or-that. Cell phone cameras are ubiquitous these days, yet unimpeachable photos of alien spacecraft-- or demons-- do not exist. As Sethu says here, Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And no, the fact that someone has a bunch of chicken scratch insignia on their breast does not make them one whit more expert or reliable than anyone else. There are even instances of degreed scientists who have been fooled by fakes.
The fact that a bunch of generals and admirals attended a UFO conference would certainly give me pause and can only mean one thing -- more $$$ for the Space Force.
I'm sorry, but it is. Yes, if you're talking crop circles or slaughtered livestock and the like, sire that's documented but there are mundane explanations. People have even confessed to making crop circles, and shown how it's done.
What we don't have is alien corpses or flying saucers or anything like that-- other than claims such things have been disappeared into Area 51 by the military. It all makes for good fiction a la the X Files and maybe there are Substacks devoted to such topics. But that shouldn't mix with serious commentary about politics or culture or religion. "Enchantment" ought not mean something more elevated than paranormal woo. Maybe leave that to the New-Agers.
Jon, do you know who Nolan is, and what he does, and the circles in which he moves?
What they're talking about is interbreeding.
What the "control our perception" means is not known. What we do know from many testimonies is that some people have seen these things while others have not. I have an Orthodox friend who, with her husband, saw one of these crafts hovering over a field as they drove down the highway. Nobody else apparently saw it. This is fairly common. In the interview, Nolan tells a story (well known in the community) about a French family that was followed down a highway with a large craft hovering overhead, at speed. They all saw it, and one of the kids photographed it through the open sun roof. But the photo did not depict what they all saw; instead, a much smaller entity. Nolan says he has a copy of the photo. We don't know how these things do what they do, but they can either control how we perceive them, or how they are seen. (Meaning, either they can affect our perceptive faculties, or they cloak and manipulate themselves.)
Interesting. I found out a couple months ago that one of my mom's cousins and a good friend of his saw *something* - they call it a UFO - back in the early 70s. (No, I don't think it had anything to do with drugs; I doubt my mom's cousin ever tried them, ever.) His daughter and I are good friends, and she happened to mention it a couple months ago, which was interesting in itself, being as UFO theory is not the type of topic I would bring up with her, and it was shortly after you started writing about Pasulka's books.
I disagree firmly. Demons are fallen angels. They are beings of pure spirit not flesh. They do not procreate and are not capable of physical intercourse. Ignore superstitious and old fantastic tales. They are relics of pagan myth and should be rejected as such.
Look - I recognise that this is seriously weird stuff, and I'm a bit nervous of getting deeply into it. Have you read the Book of Enoch? It's referenced several times in the New Testament, and is part of the Ethiopian biblical canon.
In the version in Genesis there is nothing that states "demons" were the progenitors of the Nephilim. We have no idea who "the sons of God" were, but that would be an odd title for demons (!)
The Book of Enoch was rejected by the Jews, and by the Christian church everywhere except Ethiopia-- and a big part of that was because it envisioned corporeal angels not spiritual entities, which was formal Christian teaching at a very early date.
The idea is not nearly as binary and as simplistic as you think. Read Michael Heiser on this, or the new Lord of Spirits book. To be clear: nobody really knows what this is. But there's a LOT there that I did not realize.
I think, yes, there is something to this UFO stuff and it should be looked into. But that interview caused me to be even more skeptical. Nolan may be a genius when it comes to immunology, but why in the world would he be asked by the "government" to do an analysis of some mystery substance? I didn't realize he was an expert in metallurgy or materials sciences. No matter. I'm with Sethu and Jon 100% - extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof. So where is the freaking proof?!
The only useful information I got from that interview is that we now need to worry about UFOs pooping metal slag on us. Joy.
I'm at "file under strongly agnostic": while I think that anything is technically possible and that there are more things under the sun than what can fit into my philosophies, I also see no current reason to get invested in this specific thing or consider it any further.
A more interesting question to me is whether a djinn is basically like a desert faerie, as opposed to the typical woodland kind. I'm leaning toward yes?—that seems to fit.
A lot of mythologies all over the world have "other" beings in them. As I said above I suspect the ultimate source of these tales was the other human species that once shared the planet with our own main ancestors.
Hm, I suspect that there are other types of spiritual entities out there than just angels and demons. According to Yeats' book on folklore, the Irish peasants said that the faeries are the one-third of the angels who remained neutral in the war in the heavens.
Renn is a member of the OPC (Orthodox Presbyterian Church) - they reject dispensationalism, as do most confessional protestant church bodies. So it is not on the radar for him and he would likely consider it heretical as a doctrine.
Yet a significant component of Evangelicals hold to it...and indeed, many Reformed types seem skittish around the Evangelical label for that (and other) reasons.
These are all derivatives of Arminian theology, baptist, Methodists etc.. the Canons of Dort were used to refute these ideas. Orthodox, little o, Reformed and Presbyterian churches do not teach dispensation. If they do, then these ideas should come to the attention of their Classis or Synod. Classic orthodox Reformed and Presbyterian theology derives directly to John Calvin in his Geneva, Switzerland church and writings. The Puritans in America came here with their Geneva Bibles.
As an interesting coincidence, the priest at the Greek Orthodox Church I attend gave his homily this past Sunday on how reducing Christianity to "Just be nice" was ultimately a way to throw off the church's instructions on morality in order to create your own. I wonder if he read Mr. Renn's book.
The other day, someone was just shocked because I said, "I think you're wrong." And then I added, "It's not personal or anything, I'm not mad about it, but we're talking about ideas here, and I think your idea is wrong." It was like he had never heard such a thing before; it seemed to take him several seconds to comprehend exactly what I was saying.
"As we've seen with these votes, for example, in favor of abortion, what do you do, when a solid majority of the public wants abortion to be illegal? What is your strategy? The overturn Roe vs Wade strategy was successful. Now, what's the next strategy when you're a minority?"
All opinion polls for years have shown that a majority of the public (both in the USA and Europe) want abortion to remain legal (alas): and the paragraph as a whole implies this ("[W]hat's the next strategy when you're a minority?"). It looks as though 'illegal' should be 'legal'. Could you check your recording and/or notes?
Indeed. I've become pretty black-pilled about American society (and Western society as a whole); it has become a culture of death in many ways.
The irony is not lost on me that the very culture so concerned with "Islamic Extremism" allegedly killing and oppressing thousands is the very one that not only continues to bomb Muslim-majority counties with reckless abandon, but also celebrates the annihilation of their own children by the millions.
"In today's world, there is opportunity to step back and say, Okay, now that we're actually not as entangled with politics, because we're on the outs, what do we really believe? What's our ideal society or our ideal point of view? And we don't have to worry about how that plays out in practice, politically."
The Atlantic did not hesitate to label ordinary writers on Substack as Nazis a month back so that entirely on brand for them. Get used to it and stop reading them.
Can you cite a specific piece in the Atlantic that did as you say? I read the Atlantic daily and I recall no such article (but may have missed it while traveling).
The Atlantic really jumped the shark during Covid. It had been declining for a long time, but the pandemic really seemed to accelerate things. Now, it is mostly a mouthpiece for administrative-class know-it-all elites. Although I am a conservative, I do still subscribe to Harper’s because it offers heterodox viewpoints, which I value. There are still some thoughtful lefties out there, and they are worth listening to even when you don’t agree with them. Sad that The Atlantic lost its way.
The Atlantic's Covid coverage was pure fear mongering. Yes, they've been going downhill for years but 2020 wrapped it up for good. I've been a Harper's subscriber for a long time and feel the same as you -- it's a quality publication, with lots of food for thought.
Good to know. With any luck the magazine will veer towards more nuanced and thoughtful stories. I enjoyed James Fallows's work when he was at the Atlantic but writers of that vintage are harder to come by these days.
I was literally just about to subscribe to The Atlantic solely because of Tyler Austin Harper's writing. But then they canned Yascha Mounk on the rape allegation.
Well, in nature, there isn't - no animal does the things that we do so casually, gratuitously, callously, cruelly, while proclaiming a God of love, or even our own love for each other. The Incarnation, Crucifixion, and the Resurrection are not compliments on the human race.
The Virgin Mary is hymned in our tradition as "More honorable than the Cherubim and more glorious beyond compare than the Seraphim". At our worst we excavate new levels of Hell. At our best we soar above the angels.
I tend to think that demonic evil is greater in the sense it is so deeply intrenched, but it is also in a sense boring and shallow. Human evil seems so much more creative.
I still say that the best presentation of Satan was in the original, 1967 version of "Bedazzled" - Peter Cook's Satan was the embodiment of C. S. Lewis' Screwtape, doing anything, no matter how petty, just to deny another human any moment of happiness or joy.
I don't remember feeling that way, but it's been a pretty long time by now since I visited it. I actually found *Crime and Punishment* somewhat boring, since it focuses so much on just one character rather than the entire panoply of weirdos that is typical of his other novels.
*Demons* is a literal work of prophecy, as in he told the future in there. "A hundred million will die if you go through with these ideas," he said, and then the Bolsheviks showed up.
It sounds realistic.
It's realistic if you already know you are courageous. I went and peacefully held a sign today so that I could say that I have spoken out and that I am not just giving in to quietism. Facing the fear of social rejection was a meaningful step for me. I don't expect an outcome other than social blowback. I would venture that most people here have already done these sorts of things in the past, but I felt like it was an intermediate step that I couldn't skip.
Re: The people I want in office can't get there, and if they do get there, most are changed and corrupted by the power.
"Put not your faith in princes..."
Right, this is not our “forever home”.
That is a wonderful quote of Renn's. Our life on Earth is a sojourn albeit hopefully a pleasant one. Political power is not so important.
It's not nihilistic if, in living in the world, but not of the world, you live by the Gold Standard God laid down in the Gospel and apply it in how you conduct business, etc., in your life. E.g. the Quaker model. Make people want to associate with you, not because of feels, but because (for lack of a shorter way to say it) you've sincerely and humbly aligned yourself with the Tao of Christ.
The interview discusses going back to Luther and Calvin. I think they’re the wrong place to stop at. I think we need to go back to the first and second century church to see how they lived in pagan Rome. And I think your answer to how to respond is actually the best way, though it’s not particularly marketable to our megachurch influenced evangelicals.
I guess the evangelize part of evangelicals is the hard part to let go of with respect to the doing! If we can simply live out the beattitudes, that would be more effective, echoing your points. It’s not wrong to feed the poor, but when it becomes so programmed and we get detached from doing our own part just living life.
We are headed back to Pagan Ephesus and Rome at rocket speed. All of the evils of society are returning with it. Jesus said He would build His church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. Until He returns, and then the Day of Judgement.
After some of the stuff I've seen, the comparison I make is to Sodom and Gomorrah.
Why can't God use chance? Especially since there are a handful of Biblical references to God doing so?
I don't believe for a minute that chance and intelligent design are mutually exclusive. In fact, from where I sit, I think that an intelligent designer who made use of chance as just one of many tools is VERY intelligent indeed.
But if it is God, it is not chance. It is purpose.
Why cannot chance have purpose? You do know that chance is built into the quantum world, right?
PS, why agree with atheists that chance and purpose are exclusive? We give up half the battle right there.
Because God is not random chance. He is intent and purpose. I don't care what atheists say.
But God did create a universe in which random chance operates on several levels, including within the basic structure of matter (but it is not ALL randomness, obviously). So, if this random chance is not in some way from God, where did it come from? If we were to deny it came from God, we would have to abandon Christianity for some form of Manichaeism. I'm not doing that.
But random chance says that God has to "work with it", that chance is beyond God's Will.
Nothing is.
So no, I disagree.
One Argument for the Existence of God: Mathematics
https://www.crossway.org/articles/one-argument-for-the-existence-of-god-mathematics/
I would like to point out that that many have believed that math in a sense comes from God, and there are mathematics that make randomness orderly. So, this is another way in which God and randomness are arguably not exclusive.
Without quantum randomness we would not exist: it's absolutely necessary for the reactions that build atomic nuclei and allow for fusion that powers stars.
Acts 1:26
If it was God's Will, it was not chance. Just would appear that way to humans.
So, drawing lots is not invoking chance? I think it certainly is. And so I am just as certain that God can express His will via chance. The Apostles obviously thought so, otherwise they would not have done what they did.
I don't agree that random chance took place there at all. May have appeared that way to human reckoning, but God is not limited by or to human perception.
YHWH controls the individual orbits of every single quark in the universe simultaneously. Our little pea brains are too feeble to even understand what I just said. There is no “chance” at the cosmic level. Humans talk about “chance” because our minds are too feeble to grasp reality. We simply approximate reality using “chance” as a shortcut. People can not handle the full truth in this life. In the New Earth we will see more clearly and fully, but even then, we can never attain full understanding. King Jesus will be with us in person, in His glorified body, to love us and guide us. I have no idea what that will look like. It simply doesn’t matter on this side of the 2nd Advent.
Yes, I have made similar arguments:
https://thomasfdavis.substack.com/p/the-god-particle
But OTOH, we have to account for human free will, and so we can't go too far down the determinism road. The randomness we do observe has been linked by some theologians to free will:
https://thomasfdavis.substack.com/p/the-schrodinger-equation
Creation is not God's puppet. There really is freedom within creation. The final end is determined but not the paths that lead to it.
(EDIT in asterisks) I came across a very interesting comment once, in a discussion of *megachurches and celebrity pastors* (very long story.) Your comment reminded me of that one:
""...As far as things go spiritually, I have delved deep into the rabbit hole that is Modern Culture and the more I find, the more I become convinced that the (sic) True Christianity is hidden in the cracks and crannies, away from the public eyes. I accept this as reality, as Jesus said that many will be deceived and few will be saved."
I think there's more, but that's the relevant part anyway.
Garry Nolan and Ross Coulthard are perhaps the smartest, most reliable commentators in this space, well worth listening to.
I've had this experience of religious visitation, very similar to experiences described by Diana Pasulka.
I did not really consider that this was in any way tied to the UAP phenomenon, but now I wonder.
What I actually saw, was a feminine presence, a blinding white light entering the room. First, I felt like something hot was radiating at me from the wall behind me (I was washing dishes in my flat in London, no window on that wall), like the sun was shining on me.
There was this incredibly bright white light, coming from an orb. It looked like a star had descended from heaven and later I realised this is where we get a lot of our religious symbolism and myths from.
In any ways, this being of light was the Queen of Heaven, incredibly benevolent and loving, able to touch me (which felt like a real human touch) for some hands-on-healing, which I badly needed at the time.
I now realise that she was higher-dimensional (the orb) and non-dual (the pure, undifferentiated light of the godhead). I do not believe her visitation was visible to the physical senses, it was far subtler, like the light, bemevolence and love she radiated was from a higher dimension. Her appearance felt like a descent from above, from a higher dimension, which I guess you could call Heaven. It certainly felt like it.
I wonder if scientists will ever be able to reconcile and explain religious visitations like that with higher-dimensional physics and the UAP phenomenon.
I feel that the physical beings that appear especially in alien abductions, such as the grey aliens, are very likely demonic. Beings of pure light that descend from heaven (angels, you could call them, or perhaps Elohim) are emanations from the Godhead, different forms of the divine basically. They are not physical, but beings of pure light.
On the topic of enchantment. Check out the clips on the new Apple Vision. Scary isn’t a strong enough word to describe what this is ushering in.
https://www.zerohedge.com/technology/society-one-step-closer-dystopia-vision-pro-early-adopters-spotted-wild
$4000 to walk around in public wearing diving goggles and throwing your hands around in spastic motions like you're one of Jerry's kids... the rich truly are different than you and I.
Did you see the longer video where the guy talks about how it’s all just so real to him?
I liked the one where the guy comes out of a honey bucket and climbs into his Tesla dragging a long strip of toilet paper on his shoe.
Wow. I am gonna have to rewatch it. I totally missed that.
Sorry I was talking about a video I saw on Telegram.
Well, I comfort myself with the reminder that walking around like that is perhaps America's greatest contraceptive invention.
I remember an old SCTV sketch in which Rick Moranis (or maybe it was Martin Short) played a video/virtual reality geek (to the extent that there was “virtual reality” back in the late 70’s and early 80’s) who accidentally stumbled outside and was amazed at the quality of the shapes, colours and sounds - in the real world!
SCTV! That brings back memories. We used to go see them perform live in Toronto back in the day. As great as the TV show was, it was nothing compared to seeing them live. Sometimes at the end of the night, they'd ask the audience to suggest :
a- a situation
b- a location
c- maybe a well known personality/politician of the day.
Five minutes later they'd come back onstage and do an improvised skit on all of the above.
That must have been fun! My favourite sketch of theirs remains their parody of Jane Eyre.
For me, nothing tops when Billy Sol Hurok and Big Jim McBob blowed up Brooke Shields real good on the Farm Film Report:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvHGW468n44
Yes, the whole “Celebrity Blow Up” series was good. I’ve also, as a Canadian, always been partial as well to Bob and Doug (at least in the “Great White North” series!)
I was a big fan of Bobby Bittman and Sammy Maudlin. Youtube is great for re-watching.
Bittman was my profile image for years but no one ever seemed to notice so I dropped him...LOL
The Moranis character was Jerry Todd, Video DJ. What a wonderful show, still funny today.
The most important reason for the rejection of the Benedict Option among leaders in the evangelical community is that they would have to admit that what we've been doing in terms of discipleship has been an abject failure over the last 25-50 years, and to own that would mean to own their responsibility in allowing it to happen.
I wouldn't be surprised if you start to see more interest in the Benedict Option because Aaron's book coming out on the heels of "The Great Dechurching" is going to lead to a lot of introspection as to what we need to do for folks to hang onto and live out their faith in a culture where doing so is much more challenging than the one in which our established church leaders were raised.
It's interesting to consider that "Live Not By Lies" is more recent, and sold more than 2x the number of copies that "The Benedict Option" did, yet "The Benedict Option" is the book that comes up these days in conversations more, at least among people who ask me about it. Not sure why that is.
Perhaps because the Benedict Option introduced your thinking in this area? And it was a bit of a shock to people? Plus at the time of publication it was not as clear to many that we are in negative world. Just guesses on my part.
Think of the BenOp as your version of the first Velvet Underground album. As the story goes, only a thousand people bought the album but they all went on to start bands of their own.
OK, but Nico divorced me. ;D
I’ll give my Protestant pastor take on why they want to talk about it now. They understand now.
When the Benedict Option came out, I bought a copy for each of my elders and it didn’t get traction with them. They just didn’t think it was that bad as you argued.
Post- covid and the mainstreaming of woke, people get it. Homeschooling in Covid was an eye-opener for many. Now they want to go back and talk about what they are dealing with.
You were the canary in the coal mine and many didn’t want to believe the news. Many still don’t, but the evidence is getting overwhelming.
You're absolutely right. I'd also add that "The Benedict Option" speaks to non-quantifiable things - discipleship and spiritual formation. The modern, educated, middle-class evangelical is preoccupied with numbers - the church budget, attendees at worship, etc. Things that can't be laid out on a spreadsheet make us nervous. In many evangelical churches, things are still "fine" (i.e. numbers are stable or increasing, lots of programs masquerading as ministries, etc.) and the leaders naively think that things will always be this way.
I think we are doing a gross disservice to current students of seminaries and Bible colleges by not warning them that most of them are going to probably need a side-gig or even a day job, because the days of multi-staff churches are coming to an end.
Great interview! For one, Renn offers a convincing diagnosis of the oft-repeated misreading of Benedict Option as “Head for the Hills Option”. His explanation re: Evangelicals makes sense. As for the obstinacy of Catholics and others in their misreading of the book, Rod’s probably right that it’s mainly a matter of *not* reading the book.
This interview relates to something Sethu and I got into in yesterday’s thread. My observation was that Christians in our current America--those who seek to engage with the culture or even speak openly about the faith--are stuck between Scylla and Charybdis.
If you don’t remember The Odyssey, here’s the reference. Odysseus must guide his ship through a narrow strait abutted on each side by a cliff. Midway through the strait he will pass between two monsters positioned directly across from each other. Up in the cave on one side rests Scylla, a huge crablike creature that, if he passes too close, will scurry down the cliff wall and devour a handful of his men. Across from Scylla, at the base of the other cliff, swirls a whirlpool caused by Charybdis, an octopus-like creature that will suck his ship down and devour it. Plot spoiler: Odysseus opts to pass near Scylla, losing some men but saving the ship.
What are the Scylla and Charybdis between which American Christians must navigate?
Scylla:
To take the Culture Warrior approach is to sail near Scylla. The Christian who speaks forthrightly about the faith and, say, authentic Christian sexual anthropology will suffer attack. As a huge crab-like creature with multiple heads, Scylla is rather like the online hit squad that will appear to destroy the career of any Christian who steps out of line in public.
My own take on those who fight as culture warriors is mixed. Why? The problem is that many of them suffer two related syndromes: 1) they often end up driven by anger, and 2) their focus on sexual sin in society (which is what usually motivates these warriors) often leads them to neglect the sins they themselves are guilty of (viz., for one, the anger that drives them). I've seen this cluster many times, from many Christians, who get prodded further and further by what they see, and … well, they lose necessary perspective. Their anger and desire to counter-attack the assault that's come from mainstream America becomes its own risk. It risks separating them from grace.
Sethu agrees on this, though he seems more solidly against the cultural warriors than I am. He sees that at the end of the day, they are not evangelizing, but pushing away.
So is the Christian in our American present simply to abandon even stating Christian teaching on sex and marriage? I’d say No. It is a matter of balance and timing. Wisdom. And recognizing that we are not in a position to legislate Christian teaching.
Charybdis:
Charybdis is the whirlpool swirled by a voracious giant octopus that will swallow the ship and all on board. In my metaphor here, it’s the Seeker-Sensitive/Cultural-Engagement Christians who sail near Charybdis. Why? Because their focus on the faith as a subjective way out, as a "path" toward a kind of wholeness or healing, ends up making the faith something other than Christianity. If we stress "God is love" and “Who am I to judge?” and "progressive values" and a kind of pseudo-mystical community of mutual back-rubbing, we may bring others closer this way, but we are already setting up MTG in these others' souls. And of course this is what many many of our churches now set up, rather than Christianity.
One ends up with: “God wants me to be my best self. God would never discourage me from being me when I reach for that thing which is really me. That would be MEAN. God is not MEAN.”
How does any actual Christian even begin to address this mindset without being "mean"?
“God is love” is the whole of the Gospel they will read, and of course “love” is rewritten as they see fit. “Narrow is the gate” has been expunged from their Gospel. Also, “Go and sin no more” is always cut from the end of the narrative.
Of course the reason Charybdis is courted in American churches is because 21st-century Americans simply cannot tolerate anything but affirmation. The Holy of Holies is the Authentic Desiring Self. And Christianity must bow to this truer divinity, or … be mean. To be mean is to be false. By definition. If Christ is not sitting there stroking Narcissus' shoulder and saying, "You handsome boy!" then it simply can't be Christ. According to MTG.
This is in my view the very real risk of sailing near Charybdis. The ship, in this case Christianity, is taken down and disassembled into the swirling muck of our culture's infinite narcissism. The god it evangelizes for is not Christ, but the Self.
So these are the two monsters. How to navigate between them? Not sure what the wisest, most Christian solution to our dilemma is, other than living by example. In other words, our own closeness to Christ is likely to bring others closer. But that means not succumbing to Charybdian lies, while also not letting ourselves be dominated by Scyllan anger.
Sethu is more wary of Scylla, I'm a bit more wary of Charybdis. Odysseus, of course, took his knocks from Scylla. What about Renn and Dreher? I think their answers would be mixed.
Yeah, for me, mixed. For me, a big challenge is not to be overcome by anger. People who know me personally know that I'm not an angry guy. But that isn't my online persona, and I don't intend for it to be that way.
Me too, my persona in writing tends to come off as angrier. But even so, I have the same challenge with anger at times. I've often thought that, even in practical terms, it's lucky for me I'm a Christian.
If there was ever a time in your life when you or any other believer was not a Christian, then I would say: try to vividly remember and imagine that headspace again, and then ask yourself, "Would my past self have listened to my present self and found him persuasive?" And if the answer is in the negative, then you should wonder why you think your present self will be compelling to other heathens when he would not even have gotten the ear of your past self.
Thinking in these terms always helps me realize how amnesiac we are about the actual paths that we have walked.
Also, I would note that no one ever subjectively thinks that they believe in an ideology; to the believer, it is simply reality. The wokies are quite certain that what they perceive is reality, and that the rest of us are being obstinate and perverse in our refusal to see it. Now, of course I don't believe the Gospel is an ideology—but to a heathen, getting yelled at about Christianity would be subjectively indistinguishable from what we experience when we get harangued by people who insist we're bigots for believing a boy can't turn into a girl.
So, if an angry person, apparently wrapped in an ideology that I don't care about and do not even take seriously, started yelling about it, I would think: "You don't know me, your neurotic ravings have nothing to do with me, please cease and desist." And if said ravings had to do with sex, then I would be all the more convinced that the person is quite disturbed and has all sorts of personal issues that they have not bothered to address. So the question is: even if you are convinced you're not this person, how would you convey that to the heathen?
So, while I do think you're correct about the threat of Charybdis in our culture, I don't think Scylla is really a live option. In my view, what needs to happen is for people who seek healing to somehow immanently come to the realization that MTD is fraudulent and that real healing is challenging, might well hurt a little, requires repentance and sacrifice, and all that good stuff. But they must come to see this *from the inside*, and not as an external imposition, which could only seem ideological and arbitrary at this point.
There were years when I wasn't a believer, and took up a somewhat anti-Christian stance, but some of those years I was literally a teen. Jumping forward to my 20s, would I have listened to my current self? Sure, it's a good question. In my case I probably wouldn't have agreed with my current self, but would have given my current self a hearing. But I'm a weirdo. Already at 20, I would listen to anyone I could find who'd read a lot. So it's not parallel to the case for most people.
I was mid-20s when I became a believer, though a rather unorthodox one. A seeker.
I do think you're right that a vast swath of people, now across the American age spectrum, won't even listen to talk of sexual ethics from Christians. But this anathema may be breaking somewhat, as many of these people are being shocked into rethinking their priors thanks to what they face in the latter developments of LGBTQ dogma, especially regarding the trans movement. It's a slowly shifting terrain.
The other thing that is shifting it is the increasing brokenness. More and more people, as they end up shipwrecked in the Kool-Aid sea, are going to be questioning what went wrong. But here too, I agree with you, coming in with heavy-handed condemnation of the depravity and sin of American sexual mores--it isn't going to work. Which is why I'm also wary of approaching Scylla, certainly as a strategy.
I think we're all wearing ideological blinders, even well-catechized Christians, but my bar for what counts as ideology is very low. Ideology is pervasive. We are raised in a culture, therefore we are products of ideology. Christianity liberates from ideology, but there's no Christian culture that's gotten it right, because, again, we're in history, fallen. No community of Christians can expect to get it precisely right. At best we approach what the Kingdom is. At least while we're in the muddle.
It's this pervasiveness of ideology, and the toxic blindness of the American mainstream, that makes me more wary of Charybdis than Scylla. Because ideology can recast everything, especially for those, like our compatriots, who've never learned to think. Because they've never had anything like a real liberal education. Even, and maybe even especially, the hordes now graduating from our universities. It is "My Truth" and woke or woke-adjacent dogma across the board.
Which is why I think it very very hard to evangelize in the current West, perhaps especially in the Anglosphere. It's better to focus on creating resistant, thick communities of the faithful and, living the Gospel as best we can, wait for the shipwrecked to come to us.
Yes, people will have to see some glimmer of the truth "from the inside", it's not going to be imposed from the outside, but "the inside" cannot be flattered as a means to getting them to see that glimmer. That's the risk of Charybdis. They've already been flattered enough.
When the MTD Christian says with that familiar lilt, "God loves me AS I AM," what's your best answer? Curious.
Maybe just a sardonic, "Okay, then—do it your way and see how that works out for you." I don't typically try to talk with people across axiomatic differences, given that there isn't enough shared ground for communion. And if they don't know that they are wounded and in need of healing, then what hope is there? Vaya con Dios, MTD Christian. Maybe the Holy Ghost will shock and shake and shatter them into developing some semblance of self-awareness and wisdom—if they're fortunate. If He really doesn't like them, then He'll just condemn them to remain their own oblivious selves.
They don’t know what they don’t know.
Let's not forget the "Once saved, always saved!" school of Christianity which seems to develop an immunity a mile thick to any sense of need for self-correction.
Yes, indeed. "I've got the visa stamp. I'm free to do as I please."
That's wrong, Eve. The Bible teaches eternal security. It also promises "chastening" ( "child training" in koine Greek ) for every true believer. The writer to the Hebrews states that those who claim to be Christian but are not being chastened are bastards, not genuine sons of God.
It's one thing for us to be disgusted by the phonies. I have a first cousin who is as fraudulent a man as anyone could imagine, Elder Don, the smiling sociopath with a twinkle in his eye. Who wouldn't want to attend the same church as such a delightful man?
But please, let's not defame the Lordship of Christ, or, for that matter, our brothers and sisters in Christ who may not be making the progress in sanctification which we think they should. We can't know their past agonies, their vulnerabilities, their terrors.
I've always thought that's one of the many holes below the water line in the Calvinist ship: why bother trying to be a good person? You can't be saved by being good or condemned by being evil, since everything has already been decided. In reality, it is a type of nihilism.
There is at least one cracked novel from 18th century Scotland which is based on that premise. It's in The Pile, or rather, one of several in my place. I haven't had the interest to read it, though, because the premise is a misunderstanding of the point, as is your comment, Sethu.
Calvinists believe in the perseverance of the saints, which means what I was saying to Eve: genuine Christians can expect chastening, "child training," and in the cases of Christians who think they can get away with licentiousness of whatever kind, a lot of knuckle whacking and in the hard cases, possibly some bashing with a hickory stick.
The melodramatic mind's impulse may be to think in terms of auto wrecks, unexpected job losses, rare cancers, all manner of supercharged dramaturgy, and I do know of pastors who have taught the possibility of chastening in those terms. But even they would agree that it's much likelier to appear in misery of soul.
Consider the prodigal son. His life was a country song, and he wasn't enjoying it. After the buildup of enough misery, he decided to return to the Father's house.
Your comment carries with it the drag of a works based mindset. Aphorisms tend to leave me cold, but sometimes, their pungency and brevity makes them useful: we are saved by faith alone, not by works, but true faith will never be alone; it will always show itself in works.
Excellent analysis. I would add that the most fervent culture warriors, in addition to often becoming overwhelmed with anger, also often prove to have feet of clay when it comes to sexual immorality (as in the appalling number of clerical sexual abuse scandals in churches from the Catholics to the Southern Baptists, etc.). But there are more sins in our society than those.
I never ceased to be amazed at the amazing rapacity, i.e., greed and envy, which our culture encourages, as in this actual "debate" from a legislative assembly:
”Kids shouldn’t get free lunch at school because their parents should be able to feed them!”
”But their parents can’t afford to feed them, that’s why we need free lunches.”
”Well the parents shouldn’t have kids if they can’t feed them!”
"But in the meantime, the kids are there and hungry!"
"Not our problem. That's on the parents."
Sigh...
And I for one, whose husband is very old and has multiple health issues, remember when Covid began and politicians (like the Lt. Gov of Texas) and economists proposed that the elderly should be just willing to die quickly so that the economy would stay open.
Dan Patrick, former weatherman for KHOU TV, the CBS affiliate in Houston.
Do you know how Dan got to be A Wheel? In the mid 80s, he and several friends bought a third rate AM radio station in Houston. In 1990, they were offered an unknown named Rush Limbaugh. Dan's already very good political instinct was to grab him. Within three or four years, they'd made enough money that they were able to buy KPRC AM, which was one of the city's two longest running AM radio stations. And Dan was on his way to Valhalla.
Dan is more powerful than you think, because the Texas Constitution makes the Lieutenant Governor the possessor of more actual power than the Governor.
Bob Bullock. There should be a movie about Bullock. He was Lieutenant Governor of Texas throughout the 1990s. Bullock never cared a damn about getting to be Governor. He was much more interested in bringing as much fairness to government as possible. It's too bad that death has hamstrung his political career.
So true about the light Guv position in Texas - that's where the real power is.
Those wily Texas boys, knowing they'd have Yankee governors forced on them indefinitely, rigged it that way in the Texas version of the Reconstruction era Constitution which each state was required to draft.
Please pray for me readers, as I am going out to peacefully stand with a sign in public. I have never done this before. But accepting that Christians are a minority, why not? I have lost the desire to keep up appearances with people who refuse to see that things are tough. It's a decision in the context of comparing Aaron Renn's book, see the opening examples, and the Benedict Option.
I read Aaron Renn's book right away, and I was able to reflect anew on the protestant friends who have all (how could it be all of them?) gone squishy. They indeed have too much status. I'm a Catholic convert for many years now and I'm also trying to get some lower status protestant friends at the moment.
The book referencing Digby Baltzer reminded me of the lesson of Puritan Boston and Quaker Philadelphia. Populism has it's place but it typically can't build much. I hadn't thought of this in years and the characteristics of leaders in Quaker Philadelphia fits Trump. It helps to put it in perspective in a way I hadn't thought of in years.
Praying for you.
Thank you. All went peacefully. It's less about expecting an outcome, and more about standing up for truth when the opportunity is available.
I'm sure you know that the koine Greek word for "witness" is "marturomai."
I didn't know that.
You can see why we have the word, "martyr." And if one isn't physically killed for the Faith, Christ, in crowding us out of our lives to His advantage, is killing us in a manner of speaking, isn't He?
If I hadn't encountered a certain amount of death to self I wouldn't be ready to stop publicly caring what people think. That is really what I am doing by speaking up. I am ready to stop hiding my life under a bushel for fear of being judged. People have to see a difference in a Christian life to be attracted to it. Fear isn't attractive, but it is sometimes prudent. I am pushing fear away. Other people will have other points of struggle.
Good interview of Renn.
The odd thing is I am 2/3 of the way through his book and so far he’s just does not seem as strong as he is in this interview. I sure hope he finishes strong. I’ve been disappointed so far.
I'm almost done with the book and while I'm not disappointed, I understand what you mean.
I intend to give Renn's book a good review. Yet, I'd describe Aaron's versus Rod's writing styles this way.........reading Aaron is like having a conversation with someone dressed in a suit tie while drinking a nice cup of tea. Reading Rod (particularly this blog) is like talking with someone after multiple beers while that person holds your shirt collar and talks loudly with his face a foot away from yours. IMHO there's a place for both styles.
By the way, it would be fantastic to have whichever drink and talk with either of them!
Ha, I don't see Rod that way. But I agree Renn is too nice to some people we should not be nice to.
Yeah, after re-reading my comment I over-stated Rod.....but he does have his insistent moments.
On Yascha Mounk…
His accuser should file criminal charges. Nothing more, nothing less.
Mounk should sue for defamation if he is in fact innocent of the actual criminal acts mentioned by the accuser.
This stuff must cease being litigated in the press.
Hm, that might be a bit much, given that the standard for criminal conviction is "beyond reasonable doubt". The person could still be liable in terms of the civil standard of preponderance of evidence, in which case he would lose a defamation suit.
I guess the underlying issue is that defamation is not classified as a crime, and that it would be difficult to change that without exerting a serious chilling effect on people with legitimate claims.
It is a crime to make a false police report. But in this case, it’s simply a public accusation.
If the state could prove perjury on the woman's part she should face such charges.
yep. Any number of guilty-as-sin people have walked because the state could not prove their guilt beyond that reasonable doubt standard. Good grief, was the OJ trial now so long ago people have forgotten it?
Well, I would have been six years old, so I don't think it was a memory in the first place.
The Simpson case involved jury nullification. Johnnie Cochran was a very effective lawyer as well. I occasionally would have people complain that Cochran used "mean" and "dishonorable" tactics. I would shoot back that it was Cochran's job to have Simpson acquitted.
Yes, it's a lawyer's job to get his client off if he can, or to cut the best plea deal if that's unlikely.
I wouldn't call it "jury nullification". The trial was a farce, but there was some (highly implausible, IMO) things introduced to sow doubt that Simpson was the culprit. "If the glove don't fit you must acquit."
I remember! I was on the freeways during the “chase”…..it was bizarre.
My wife and I were on our last night of vacation during the "slow chase." I asked my wife something to the effect, "What the hell are you watching?" What little did I know that OJ Simpson spectacular would be a media circus for a whole year.
Me too. I was driving up from San Diego and was just a few miles behind... so strange.
Tempus fugit.
She did end up criminally convicted of something, if I recall.
I very much agree. If you're going to publicize a claim of a crime committed against you then you should be pursuing that through the legal system (of course there may a complication if the act was many years ago and the statute of limitations prevents charges). Trial by gossip should be nixed.
And The Atlantic needs to bleed for its craven collapse as well. Not sure how it would be described legally, but piling on with a slanderer ought to cost something.
I need to preface this comment by expressing that I am an evangelical and mostly interact with evangelicals. Aaron's comment about how the title of the Benedict Option book and the picture on the front could have led people to immediately generate an opinion of the book's thesis is interesting to me. It is a revelation about why some of my own friends developed their negative opinion's about the book without reading it. I wonder if the Re-enchantment book is at the same risk? The term re-enchantment will have the same effect, I fear, as the Benedict Option title did because of the sense of "woo-woo" that evangelicals get from it. I believe Aaron was brilliant in using terms for his framework that were both benign but clear in their meaning. Positive, neutral and negative are all words that won't immediately cause someone to turn away. Is there a similar term to re-enchantment that can be used in the title that will evoke the same meaning but not generate an immediate opinion? I ask the question because I believe re-enchantment is especially needed in the evangelical sphere, but I fear the word will cause them to turn away. I suspect the people who will be drawn by the term are those who are, in essence, your choir. The people who will react negatively to the term are those who most need to read the book. So, is there another term that can be used even if it is later defined in the book as re-enchantment with the goal of hooking people to begin reading rather than rejecting it by judging the cover?
I am Catholic, not evangelical, but I appreciate your point. My first thought was something like "Into the Deep" (referring to Luke 5:4.) It would appeal to the evangelical mind because of the Scripture reference, without alienating other Christians, and "casting your nets into the deep" is a good metaphor (I think) for living in an enchanted creation. But a title like this would also come with its own problems, misunderstandings, and confusions.
Funny, "Into The Deep" was one of the first titles I thought about! I'm not sure why they didn't choose it. it's a good one. The title now is "Living In Wonder". I preferred "Into The Mystic" in the end, but that was rejected. Me and my early Van Morrison stuff!
Oh man, I like "Into The Deep" as a title. Maybe with a subtitle using the word "enchantment"?
I like "Into the Deep" much more than "Living in Wonder". The former risks sounding like a thriller, but the latter risks sounding like a self-help book.
Hmm, are they still debating the title? Important decision!
My vote's with *Theophany*. Eric's right that *Living in Wonder* risks sounding like a New Agey self-help book that Oprah might enjoy, sort of in the vein of *Eat, Pray, Love*.
My impression, as if it mattered: Benedict Option - Live Not By Lies - are great titles that become statements unto themselves, condensed quotes for a world of meaning to support or oppose. As for 'Living in Wonder' that could be the title of any number of self-help books, or about Disney, or really many topics, its so 'blah' and generic sounding to me - it would never draw me in unless I knew who wrote the book (and I do). 'Into the Deep' - that has more potential - 'a deep life', 'deep living', 'deep theology' etc... 'Mystic' might carry a lot of baggage in the protestant world.
‘Into the Mystic’ is my absolute FAVORITE song. I would read it based on that title alone, because I’m a sucker for Morrison and would immediately take it as a sign from the universe that it is indeed confirmed as the best song. I digress. I am evangelical and I know my brethren would likely reject the word ‘mystic’ as woo woo. Sadly. These other two titles would be much more easily accepted. I’m positive my opinion is needed here. ;)
Rod, if you read this, I’d like you to know that two weeks ago I started a Benedict Option book discussion in my home with about 20 other people from my tiny country church here in Oregon. I’m glad we’re reading it now versus in 2017. I don’t think this group was ready until after 2020’s events. Many are wary with references to Orthodoxy or Catholicism and I keep trying to bring them back to view the bigger picture. I hope this group gets there - most have not read anything like this. I am so thankful you wrote it. I’m late to the party and only started reading you about 6 months ago. But, I really really like your brain. Looking forward to ‘Into the Mystic’. ;)
And when that foghorn blows
You know I will be coming home.
I’ve often been tempted to get a small tattoo with the lyric ‘younger than the sun’ as homage to this song. But alas, I live in western Oregon - a land where tattoos are more common than teeth (thanks, meth). Also, knowing that approximately 827,342 other humans likely also possess the same tattoo really resets my perspective. My non-conformist (yet sensitive) heart would break the moment I see someone else with the same ink. Unmarked, I remain --
born before the wind, younger than the sun.
Tattoo’s mar the beauty within. For me, ladies are more lovely without any tattoos.
Have a piece of jewelry made with the quote.
Dana
Re: they might be trying to change human nature.
If they are they are wasting their time and effort. Human nature is not changeable, except at evolutionary time scales.
Re: Nolan says, that whatever these entities are, they have the ability to control our perception.
What does this mean? Deceive us with hallucinations and illusions? Sure. Give us abilities we do not naturally have? No.
Re: Nolan predicts that we are a couple of years away from a major disclosure by the government.
I'm going be rude: this is a crankery. Maybe Nolan should be writing fantasy or horror novels?
"Change human nature" is a contradiction in terms, yes. You can't change it. You can substitute something else for it, however.
I'm not getting the UFO thing.
I should add that people can be misled and deceived into acting contrary to their nature.
UFOs seems to be the modern version of Tituba in the kitchen, whispering the tall tales of the islands to the hysterical teenagers of Salem Village.
The demonic explanation makes more sense. Has it ever struck you that nobody saw a flying saucer before the Wright brothers?
Well, actually there was a "celestial phenomena" in 1561 in Nuremberg, where "witnesses observed hundreds of spheres, cylinders, and other odd-shaped objects that moved erratically overhead". And on January 25, 1878, the Denison Daily News printed an article in which John Martin, a local farmer, had reported seeing a large, dark, circular object resembling a balloon flying "at wonderful speed". And there is a manuscript illustration of the 10th-century Japanese "The Tale of the Bamboo Cutter", that depicts a round flying machine similar to a flying saucer. (But there was a volcano erupting at the time, so who knows.)
But I would say that for the most part, however, someone had to invent a flying machine of some kind before others could imagine they saw one. On the other hand, the "knowledge" of people flying through the woods, or becoming werewolves, or vampires, or zombies all go back a long, long way. The darkness has always been out there. It just takes different appearances over time and culture.
Trust you to have the goods.
Research is my gift. ;)
There were also the flying cigars seen over the Great Plains in the 1890s.
I hold that flying cigars and such could well be dramatic cloud formations - heaven knows, the climate up here goes from one extreme to the other, and when the clouds do chew up the sky they come in all sorts of formations and colors. BTW, It's the green ones that should scare you down to the basement.
People saw other things-- dragons for example. Chariots of the gods. We started interpreting these things as alien spacecraft under the influence of 19th century science fiction (Jules Verne. HG Wells)
Wheels within wheels ...
That's not true. Read Jacques Vallee on this. He theorizes that whatever the UFO phenomenon is, it is a modern, 20c articulation of bizarre mythological events and creatures that have appeared in various cultures throughout human history. Vallee's conjecture is that these are the same entities manifesting in a guise to speak to the imaginations of people in the age of science fiction and high tech.
OK. A long way around the barn to say I don't believe in space aliens. But I believe in demons.
I'm going to have to agree, Jon. The UFO stuff seems like so much humbug, and people falling over each other about this--good, intelligent people. But I don't see it as very believable.
I wonder how much you know about what is actually on the record about this stuff. I didn't give a fig about it till last fall, when I discovered, much to my shock, that there is WAY more known about this than I surmised. Why do you suppose the big Stanford conference on this stuff late last year drew generals and admirals and intelligence world people? Far as I can tell, nobody who is well informed about it all will say for sure what this phenomenon is, because they don't really know. But most people at that level do NOT believe that it's about creatures from other planets.
I think the principle here is simply that extraordinary empirical claims require extraordinary evidence, and I'm just not seeing it. Why are they all interested?—well, it could be a psyop for all we know. I assume you wouldn't put that past them. And I'm not sure why you believe that these specific government officials have their heads screwed on straight, given what we know about the rest of the regime.
"Why do you suppose the big Stanford conference on this stuff late last year drew generals and admirals and intelligence world people?"
There is always publicity, and a 100% paid expense trip. It draws more (of a certain type of) people to conferences than one might think.
It remains the case that there is a distinct lack of hard physical evidence, as opposed to people saying they saw this-or-that. Cell phone cameras are ubiquitous these days, yet unimpeachable photos of alien spacecraft-- or demons-- do not exist. As Sethu says here, Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And no, the fact that someone has a bunch of chicken scratch insignia on their breast does not make them one whit more expert or reliable than anyone else. There are even instances of degreed scientists who have been fooled by fakes.
The fact that a bunch of generals and admirals attended a UFO conference would certainly give me pause and can only mean one thing -- more $$$ for the Space Force.
And more ribbons.
<<It remains the case that there is a distinct lack of hard physical evidence, as opposed to people saying they saw this-or-that.>>
That is actually not true.
I'm sorry, but it is. Yes, if you're talking crop circles or slaughtered livestock and the like, sire that's documented but there are mundane explanations. People have even confessed to making crop circles, and shown how it's done.
What we don't have is alien corpses or flying saucers or anything like that-- other than claims such things have been disappeared into Area 51 by the military. It all makes for good fiction a la the X Files and maybe there are Substacks devoted to such topics. But that shouldn't mix with serious commentary about politics or culture or religion. "Enchantment" ought not mean something more elevated than paranormal woo. Maybe leave that to the New-Agers.
My small inner voice wants to say that I hope you keep writing about it, Rod.
Yep, that "big reveal" is gonna happen any day now, you just wait and see! Any day, yep! This time for sure!
"You really will kick the football this time, Charlie Brown."
Jon, do you know who Nolan is, and what he does, and the circles in which he moves?
What they're talking about is interbreeding.
What the "control our perception" means is not known. What we do know from many testimonies is that some people have seen these things while others have not. I have an Orthodox friend who, with her husband, saw one of these crafts hovering over a field as they drove down the highway. Nobody else apparently saw it. This is fairly common. In the interview, Nolan tells a story (well known in the community) about a French family that was followed down a highway with a large craft hovering overhead, at speed. They all saw it, and one of the kids photographed it through the open sun roof. But the photo did not depict what they all saw; instead, a much smaller entity. Nolan says he has a copy of the photo. We don't know how these things do what they do, but they can either control how we perceive them, or how they are seen. (Meaning, either they can affect our perceptive faculties, or they cloak and manipulate themselves.)
Interesting. I found out a couple months ago that one of my mom's cousins and a good friend of his saw *something* - they call it a UFO - back in the early 70s. (No, I don't think it had anything to do with drugs; I doubt my mom's cousin ever tried them, ever.) His daughter and I are good friends, and she happened to mention it a couple months ago, which was interesting in itself, being as UFO theory is not the type of topic I would bring up with her, and it was shortly after you started writing about Pasulka's books.
Re: What they're talking about is interbreeding.
Demons are beings of spirit not flesh. They do not breed. Anyone who claims as much is well beyond the frontiers of traditional Christian doctrine.
This whole business sounds like a rejected plot for the X-Files.
I believe it’s very much part of the Christian tradition.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-lord-of-spirits/id1531206254?i=1000518920500
I disagree firmly. Demons are fallen angels. They are beings of pure spirit not flesh. They do not procreate and are not capable of physical intercourse. Ignore superstitious and old fantastic tales. They are relics of pagan myth and should be rejected as such.
Well, I’ll take the traditions of the Church and priests’ words over your “firm disagreement” over “superstition.”
I am giving you the tradition of the Church.
What about the nephilim, though?
Look - I recognise that this is seriously weird stuff, and I'm a bit nervous of getting deeply into it. Have you read the Book of Enoch? It's referenced several times in the New Testament, and is part of the Ethiopian biblical canon.
In the version in Genesis there is nothing that states "demons" were the progenitors of the Nephilim. We have no idea who "the sons of God" were, but that would be an odd title for demons (!)
The Book of Enoch was rejected by the Jews, and by the Christian church everywhere except Ethiopia-- and a big part of that was because it envisioned corporeal angels not spiritual entities, which was formal Christian teaching at a very early date.
The idea is not nearly as binary and as simplistic as you think. Read Michael Heiser on this, or the new Lord of Spirits book. To be clear: nobody really knows what this is. But there's a LOT there that I did not realize.
I think, yes, there is something to this UFO stuff and it should be looked into. But that interview caused me to be even more skeptical. Nolan may be a genius when it comes to immunology, but why in the world would he be asked by the "government" to do an analysis of some mystery substance? I didn't realize he was an expert in metallurgy or materials sciences. No matter. I'm with Sethu and Jon 100% - extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof. So where is the freaking proof?!
The only useful information I got from that interview is that we now need to worry about UFOs pooping metal slag on us. Joy.
I'm at "file under strongly agnostic": while I think that anything is technically possible and that there are more things under the sun than what can fit into my philosophies, I also see no current reason to get invested in this specific thing or consider it any further.
A more interesting question to me is whether a djinn is basically like a desert faerie, as opposed to the typical woodland kind. I'm leaning toward yes?—that seems to fit.
A lot of mythologies all over the world have "other" beings in them. As I said above I suspect the ultimate source of these tales was the other human species that once shared the planet with our own main ancestors.
Hm, I suspect that there are other types of spiritual entities out there than just angels and demons. According to Yeats' book on folklore, the Irish peasants said that the faeries are the one-third of the angels who remained neutral in the war in the heavens.
Did I miss the "Rapture"? Does the Rev Renn even consider it?
Renn is not a pastor.
No matter. What happened with the "Rapture"?
Renn is a member of the OPC (Orthodox Presbyterian Church) - they reject dispensationalism, as do most confessional protestant church bodies. So it is not on the radar for him and he would likely consider it heretical as a doctrine.
Yet a significant component of Evangelicals hold to it...and indeed, many Reformed types seem skittish around the Evangelical label for that (and other) reasons.
These are all derivatives of Arminian theology, baptist, Methodists etc.. the Canons of Dort were used to refute these ideas. Orthodox, little o, Reformed and Presbyterian churches do not teach dispensation. If they do, then these ideas should come to the attention of their Classis or Synod. Classic orthodox Reformed and Presbyterian theology derives directly to John Calvin in his Geneva, Switzerland church and writings. The Puritans in America came here with their Geneva Bibles.
As an interesting coincidence, the priest at the Greek Orthodox Church I attend gave his homily this past Sunday on how reducing Christianity to "Just be nice" was ultimately a way to throw off the church's instructions on morality in order to create your own. I wonder if he read Mr. Renn's book.
For a lot of people, “be nice” = “don’t disagree with anything I say or do because that will mean you’re a bad person.”
The other day, someone was just shocked because I said, "I think you're wrong." And then I added, "It's not personal or anything, I'm not mad about it, but we're talking about ideas here, and I think your idea is wrong." It was like he had never heard such a thing before; it seemed to take him several seconds to comprehend exactly what I was saying.
Rod, is this a misprint?
"As we've seen with these votes, for example, in favor of abortion, what do you do, when a solid majority of the public wants abortion to be illegal? What is your strategy? The overturn Roe vs Wade strategy was successful. Now, what's the next strategy when you're a minority?"
All opinion polls for years have shown that a majority of the public (both in the USA and Europe) want abortion to remain legal (alas): and the paragraph as a whole implies this ("[W]hat's the next strategy when you're a minority?"). It looks as though 'illegal' should be 'legal'. Could you check your recording and/or notes?
Indeed. I've become pretty black-pilled about American society (and Western society as a whole); it has become a culture of death in many ways.
The irony is not lost on me that the very culture so concerned with "Islamic Extremism" allegedly killing and oppressing thousands is the very one that not only continues to bomb Muslim-majority counties with reckless abandon, but also celebrates the annihilation of their own children by the millions.
Yes, a misprint. Shoot. Aaron and I both went over that transcript.
Re: what do you do, when a solid majority of the public wants abortion to be illegal?
I assumed that was a typo, and it should have been "remain legal".
"In today's world, there is opportunity to step back and say, Okay, now that we're actually not as entangled with politics, because we're on the outs, what do we really believe? What's our ideal society or our ideal point of view? And we don't have to worry about how that plays out in practice, politically."
Yes, that is an encouraging thought.
The Atlantic did not hesitate to label ordinary writers on Substack as Nazis a month back so that entirely on brand for them. Get used to it and stop reading them.
"We didn't accuse innocent people of being fascists. That was a Communist trick."
--Mary McCarthy
I guess it's a long way down from Emerson.
Can you cite a specific piece in the Atlantic that did as you say? I read the Atlantic daily and I recall no such article (but may have missed it while traveling).
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/11/substack-extremism-nazi-white-supremacy-newsletters/676156/
The Atlantic really jumped the shark during Covid. It had been declining for a long time, but the pandemic really seemed to accelerate things. Now, it is mostly a mouthpiece for administrative-class know-it-all elites. Although I am a conservative, I do still subscribe to Harper’s because it offers heterodox viewpoints, which I value. There are still some thoughtful lefties out there, and they are worth listening to even when you don’t agree with them. Sad that The Atlantic lost its way.
The Atlantic's Covid coverage was pure fear mongering. Yes, they've been going downhill for years but 2020 wrapped it up for good. I've been a Harper's subscriber for a long time and feel the same as you -- it's a quality publication, with lots of food for thought.
The Atlantic has run pieces quite critical of the "woke" and even the feminist Left.
Here's a recent one criticizing Big Tech I think many people here would agree with; https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2024/03/facebook-meta-silicon-valley-politics/677168/
And here's an older one from last year defending boys against the male-\bashing of the radical feminists:https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/08/heroic-toxic-masculinity-boys/675172/
Good to know. With any luck the magazine will veer towards more nuanced and thoughtful stories. I enjoyed James Fallows's work when he was at the Atlantic but writers of that vintage are harder to come by these days.
Caitlin Flanagan is great.
I was literally just about to subscribe to The Atlantic solely because of Tyler Austin Harper's writing. But then they canned Yascha Mounk on the rape allegation.
Who are the real demons here, extraterrestrials or humans?
Humans often seem to do all the heavy lifting required for that slot.
In my darker moods I rather do think there is no evil as deep as human evil.
Well, in nature, there isn't - no animal does the things that we do so casually, gratuitously, callously, cruelly, while proclaiming a God of love, or even our own love for each other. The Incarnation, Crucifixion, and the Resurrection are not compliments on the human race.
For that reason calling human beings “animals” when we engage in depraved behaviour is way off the mark. We behave, in fact, like demons.
The opposite, of course, is also true: we can behave like angels (or maybe I should just stick with “saints”)
The Virgin Mary is hymned in our tradition as "More honorable than the Cherubim and more glorious beyond compare than the Seraphim". At our worst we excavate new levels of Hell. At our best we soar above the angels.
I tend to think that demonic evil is greater in the sense it is so deeply intrenched, but it is also in a sense boring and shallow. Human evil seems so much more creative.
I still say that the best presentation of Satan was in the original, 1967 version of "Bedazzled" - Peter Cook's Satan was the embodiment of C. S. Lewis' Screwtape, doing anything, no matter how petty, just to deny another human any moment of happiness or joy.
That movie was highly entertaining-- a true hoot.
I'll never forget the Order of Saint Beryl, or the Leaping Nuns... Hilarious!
Just poaching on a thread but did anyone other than me have a difficult time with Dostoevsky's "Demons."
How so?
Boring. I've read The Brothers Karamazov and Crime and Punishment and really enjoyed them.
I don't remember feeling that way, but it's been a pretty long time by now since I visited it. I actually found *Crime and Punishment* somewhat boring, since it focuses so much on just one character rather than the entire panoply of weirdos that is typical of his other novels.
I found it fascinating -- have read it 3x. Definitely not the place to start with FD though.
Also, I'd recommend reading Notes From Underground first.
*Demons* is a literal work of prophecy, as in he told the future in there. "A hundred million will die if you go through with these ideas," he said, and then the Bolsheviks showed up.