This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
How much backlash has there been, really? Since seeing one or two of the ads, this is the first I’ve heard of it. Nothing like certain other bits of LGBT culture war in the last month. Does the “habitual controversy” extend beyond a single AOC tweet?
Assuming it does, perhaps liberals just found the campaign insincere or, as the kids say, “cringe.” Kind of like you’re finding progressive Christianity to be hollow. If a Democrat group was running similar messaging, I think you’d correctly view it as a rather artless attempt to co-opt something about which you actually care.
On the topic of progressive Christian denominations: I’d like to see more concrete examples. The Unitarian Universalists sort of fit—on account of being explicitly non-Christian. Their non-Trinitarian predecessors still deny Jesus’ divinity, but are not nearly as tied to modern progressivism. Meanwhile, the United Methodists are progressive enough to have triggered multiple schisms while remaining firmly Nicene. They’re also more liturgical than any number of charismatic branches!
I get the impression you’re conflating a lot of groups into a sort of progressive Christian gestalt. That kind of makes the important differences flatten out. A believer can find a pretty progressive sect without even dipping into Arianism, let alone Deism.
I agree with @hydroacetylene below me here. I'm writing from the perspective of someone in a conservative church, and from the perspective of Christians it really is black and white. All progressive or liberal churches are seen with roughly the same amount of skepticism regardless of their distinctive characteristics. Non-Trinitarian sects would not even be considered Christians at all.
To me it feels very strange to group United Methodists in with pop-up college congregations of the sort you describe. And if you're arguing that progressive sects won't keep members, then it's not the existing Christians' perspective that is telling. Potential progressive converts are going to find sects which both 1) have strong spiritual traditions and 2) are really liberal about the gays.
There’s gay converts to Episcopalianism, but they’re still declining much faster than the denominations that are more conservative about homosexuality. The idea that ‘potential progressive converts’ are a meaningfully large number of people, or that converts are generally denomination shopping, both seem rather unfounded to me.
Now that I can agree with.
It’s the OP’s assertion that a progressive church won’t have robust “spiritual traditions” that I doubt.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think he’s referring to progressive churches that cater to a younger crowd than the typical liberal Protestant church(which serves a congregation that is very, very old. Contrary to popular belief conservative and fundamentalist Christianity is much younger than liberal Christianity). I am aware of nondenominational churches which maintain generally conservative stances that are extremely loose as applied to members(eg approval of cohabitation if marriage is being ‘considered’, as I remember being scandalized by my sister’s church believing), but not of substantial numbers of nondenominational churches which hold progressive views.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link