From
Marxists on the left to former House Speaker Paul Ryan on the right, many
voices in the political discussion assure us that the “culture war” is a distraction
and that what matter most are economic issues.
But economic order has cultural prerequisites, and indeed economic
phenomena themselves cannot even be conceptualized apart from cultural presuppositions. I make the case for the priority of culture
to economics in my essay
“In
Defense of Culture War,” which appears this week at
Postliberal Order.
Hello Dr. Feser, have you had much exposure to Newpolity and their work on postliberal thought (Andrew Willard Jones, Jacob Imam, Marc Barnes, etc.)? They have had some disagreements with the folks over at Postliberal Order, particularly around a proper understanding of authority (as distinct from power) and I would love to 'hear' your thoughts on the debate.
ReplyDeleteImam also pushes the narrative that 'speculating' i.e., investing is a sin. Total nonsense.
DeleteCodswallop.
ReplyDeleteThe idea that "wokeness" is the chiefmost battle and demands a response comes from a false extrapolation that supposes it will take further root if left unopposed. This is idiocy.
The only people breeding above replacement are religious people and stupid people. 100 years from now we'll be in the tail-end of a backlash, with religious people firmly in control of all institutions globally.
The much more pressing issue is the moral danger of weak souls of good will now. Economic rape is not a purgation of one's spirit, and it is very bizarre to see "religious" folks conduct their speech as though it were ("well you just attach yourself to material goods too much! fighting disney is what matters!"); it is completely diabolical. "And lead us not into temptation."
Whatever circle of hell victims of economic rape may fall into in their weakness of will and sinful responses, the perpetrators will endure much worse torments for destroying the innocence of the good; likewise will any who, even unwittingly, abide their plots to bring others with them to damnation.
Anonymous, nobody is arguing for economic rape. You're arguing in bad faith.
DeleteThe only people breeding above replacement are religious people and stupid people.
DeleteCodswallop. The Left, the NewLeft, and the Woke have been using the mechanisms of Big Government and Big Business to turn the biological children of religious people into their own spiritual children, and have been doing so for a long time now. Public schools regularly churn out graduates who are far more leftwards than their parents. Universities do so with even more stunning success: the percentage of "turned" grows higher with every year spent at the college level, to the point where hardly a Ph.D. can be found who is not at least 2 times more leftward than her parents, (unless her parents are themselves college professors).
The much more pressing issue is the moral danger of weak souls of good will now.
Weak souls are in danger from attack from many angles, not just one. But saints and demons alike report that more souls are damned from sins of the flesh than any other one cause. In this world today, it is hard to say that has changed.
There isn't only one battle to fight, except the general fight of good overcoming all evil. Yet God calls individuals to fight this or that front of the battle, throughout the world, some called to fight sinful anger, some called to fight pride, some called to fight lust, etc., as their most visible part of the war. Nobody should be castigated for fighting the specific battlefront God calls them to, even if it's not the battle God calls you to.
likewise will any who, even unwittingly, abide their plots to bring others with them to damnation.
Typically, "unwitting" wrongs are not those we would be damned for: the witting sins are sufficient unto the task. The exception would be those unwitting things we have an obligation to know as wrong, for which our ignorance is itself self-inflicted and (knowingly) sinful - so these are "unwitting" only in a sense.
OP,
ReplyDelete()"is destructive force which isn’t reducible to economics, and can never be defeated by economic solutions alone."
Agreed. There are destructive forces to be battled, not by economics alone, or philosophical arguments alone.
That is why the so-called New Atheists were and are so very much on the right track, battling the destructive forces of () in ways large numbers of ordinary people could understand and agree with, thus making real positive effects on the lives of millions.
Oh, right, to be fair, I did make one substitution with respect to the OP,
(religion)
Stardusty,
DeleteThe New Atheists were part of the problem. Look at what they propped up - scientific materialism, in the service of destroying foreign and domestic enemies of the regime. Scientific materialism makes it easier for bureaucrats to manipulate the masses by reducing them to quantities to be controlled through social engineering. Much easier to to control a monad than a human person with rights.
Stardusty: "That is why the so-called New Atheists were and are so very much on the right track"
DeleteBwahahahahahaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahhahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah........
Oh, you should be a stand-up comedian...
StardustyPsyche,
DeleteThe New Atheism was a flash-in-the-pan. More short-lived than the morning dew or the repentances in Ancient Israel.
The only thing more ridiculous than New Atheism was Atheism Plus.
DeleteMister Geocon,
Delete"The New Atheists were part of the problem. Look at what they propped up - scientific materialism"
Let's see if that is such a problem when you need the medical technology of science.
"in the service of destroying foreign and domestic enemies of the regime."
We use our science to destroy enemies that attack us, so what is the problem?
HolyKnowledge
Delete"The New Atheism was a flash-in-the-pan. More short-lived than the morning dew or the repentances in Ancient Israel."
Keep dreaming.
Religion in the USA and the West generally is dying. It is an all too slow death, but clearly in progress.
Religious affiliation and belief is falling, atheism is growing, monotonically.
Religious philosophers sniff that the new atheists make bad philosophical arguments. How absurd.
There are no good philosophical arguments for god on offer, not a single one.
Most people are not convinced primarily by philosophical arguments, rather, by what makes sense to them personally.
The New Atheists did an excellent work by communicating to millions of people how nonsensical and destructive religions are. More and more people are getting that message, hardly a flash in the pan, you have no idea what you are talking about.
Stardusty:
DeleteWell, here you go: Death of the New Atheism!
https://breakpoint.org/is-the-new-atheism-dead/
And P.Z. Myers sure seems to think so:
https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2021/06/05/new-atheism-is-deaddoes-that-make-this-abuse-of-a-corpse/
https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2019/09/11/so-what-is-or-rather-who-is-the-problem-with-new-atheism/
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteStardusty,
Delete"Let's see if that is such a problem when you need the medical technology of science."
To be clear, your statement that you need to be a materialist in order to study medicine is about as insane as someone claiming that you need to be scientologist in order to study medicine. It's bonkers. However, it's about what I expected from you.
SP, thank you for these comments. I appreciate that you have finally admitted that you aren’t actually interested in engaging with the best arguments, but in performing whatever rhetoric is necessary to produce what you consider the best result.
DeleteIt’s good to know that any discussion with you on philosophical topics is going to be fruitless, as by your own admission, you aren’t here in good faith.
"Religion in the U.S.A. is in apostasy. It is not dying. Bige difference."
DeleteSo. people leaving religion is not religion dying?
Makes no sense. That is what it means when an organization or belief system is dying, people are leaving it.
It is pretty easy for me to be in favor of the culture wars because my side is gaining ground and your side is losing ground.
Conservative culture wars are an attempt to slow the loss of ground. One problem is, though, the more zealous the religious conservatives sound the more people consider them to be regressive criminal kooks.
There are some religious conservatives who are not kooks, but more and more they barely move the needle of public visibility, support, and influence.
The stars of the show are red state nut jobs in the House and a guy who is two thirds of the way to 100 felony counts against him, and rising (and he is the red state front runner by far!). Really? Is that the best you guys can offer?
Maybe Dr. Feser should throw his hat in the ring! Honestly it would be refreshing if an intellectual, philosophical, affable guy with a penchant for educating young people would get out in front on the conservative side. His religious arguments are unsound, but at least he is willing to engage in rational dialogue.
Yogami,
Delete"Death of the New Atheism!"
Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete""Religion is dying" might be more true for countries like Sweden or Finland though."
DeleteYou wish.
Religion is dying in the USA. Calling it "in apostasy" is just a little rationalization re-labeling. I suppose that gives you some kind of comfort.
People are leaving organized religion and moving to some vague notion of spirituality, or agnosticism, or apathy, or atheism.
In the culture wars the so-called New Atheists have made an effective and significant contribution to this trend of the dying of religion.
It is easy for me to welcome culture wars because my side is winning and your side is losing.
Geo,
Delete"To be clear, your statement that you need to be a materialist in order to study medicine is about as insane as someone claiming that you need to be scientologist in order to study medicine. It's bonkers."
You need to study medicine materialistically.
When you study medicine you must take a materialistic approach to your study and practice of medicine.
Western medicine is materialistic medicine.
All board certification examinations in medicine in the USA are entirely materialistic.
"bonkers"
If you need surgery and instead of rolling you into a surgical room they roll you into a chapel and start praying to god to heal you, then you will consider the medical staff to have gone bonkers.
Sure, if you are a medical doctor and in your off hours on your personal time you go someplace to pray to Allah or Joseph Smith or Zenu or the Monkey God or Jesus you can do that if you want, up to you.
But when you study medicine you must study materialistically or you will be failed in your coursework.
It is against the law for a licensed medical doctor to practice medicine non-materialistically. A licensed medical doctor is required by law to diagnose and treat his or her patients materialistically.
Parents who substitute prayer for materialistic health care for their children are guilty of child abuse.
DeleteAnonymous June 23, 2023 at 8:23 AM
"SP, thank you for these comments. I appreciate that you have finally admitted that you aren’t actually interested in engaging with the best arguments,"
What best arguments? Could you please be a little more vague?
Besides, even if you put forward some "best arguments" how would I know it was you? I mean, there are a lot of folks with the same name as you. If you want somebody to engage with your arguments it helps to pick a handle, say, 25or624, or anything that comes to mind, it doesn't much matter.
Oh dear. SP, surely you don't think that the quality of an argument is dependent on the person making it, do you?
DeleteThe quality of a discussion in a crowd of people is dependent on having some means of keeping track of who said what in response to what.
DeleteI have no idea what you mean by "the best arguments". What arguments, by who, when, where?
@StardustyPsyche:
Delete"Religion is dying in the USA".
Not true at all, since wokeness is on the rise, and wokeness IS a religion (the one that has come to occupy the void left by mainstream Christianity).
The saddest part is that any dimwit can now self-appoint himself as a pastor of this Neo-Church, as the New Saviors of society, which is plagued by Sin but that will be finally cleansed through the woke apostolate.
And what is even sadder is that its members are usually "not-so-bright" that they tend NOT to realize that they are part of a vicious, decadent cult.
"Wokeness is a civil religion that merges one's duty to the divine with that of the State. It replaces God with political and cultural crusades and enforces all-inclusive orthodoxy. It manifests all of the traits we commonly associate with religion, and a particularly fundamentalist one at that."
Religion is certainly NOT dying in the USA. It has just mutated into a mess.
For years now, I have been aggravated by nitwits who claim cultural issues are "distractions" from "real," i.e. economic, issues. Culture is the foundation of everything else. To claim that cultural issues are "distractions" from "real" issues is closely analogous to claiming that the crumbling foundation of a house is a "distraction: from the "real" issues of the walls and ceiling. No matter how often or how well you patch up the walls ans ceiling, if the foundation crumbles, the house will collapse.
ReplyDeleteThose nitwit also reckon without the degree to which cultural issues are economic issues. One of the best predictors of economic success for an individual is whether he or she grows up in an intact family. I don't have the statistics, but common sense would dictate that there is a steep economic cost for drug and alcohol related accidents, absenteeism, and health care. Religious people are far more likely to lead the kind of stable lives and have the intact families that produce stable, productive citizens.
Finally, those materialists simply can't imagine that there are good, rational people who are willing to give up a modicum of economic growth to have a safer, saner, more moral world in which to raise their children.
Anonymous,
DeleteI agree cultural issues are not a distraction. As you imply, economic output is a function of cultural input, not the other way around.
But I don't think there is compelling evidence that religious people "are far more likely to lead the kind of stable lives and have the intact families that produce stable, productive citizens." If you look at the most religious countries in the world, they are not economic powerhouses. If you look at the least religious countries in the world they tend to near the top of the economic pyramid. It's hard to draw firm conclusions about religion and economic success. There are way too many other variables including the sect and level of fanaticism.
And I don't know how far you want to take the following:
"Finally, those materialists simply can't imagine that there are good, rational people who are willing to give up a modicum of economic growth to have a safer, saner, more moral world in which to raise their children."
I hope you're qualifying "those materialists" as a subset of materialists. I'm a materialist. I know there are "good, rational people who are willing to give up a modicum of economic growth to have a safer, saner, more moral world in which to raise their children." I'm one of them. But I'll note that I've known religious people who can't imagine giving up their economic success for a safer, saner, more moral world, or even a cohesive family.
WCB
ReplyDeleteAtheists - agnostics are 10% of America's population according to Pew Research, Gallup, George Barna and others. But among Generation Z that is now 19%. The internet is giving good reasons to doubt the existence of God to young cohorts. In much of Europe, the numbers are even more skeptical.
And we are beginning to see a reaction to anti-woke hysteria, for example Ron DeSantis and his claim Florida "is where woke goes to die". Young Americans are becoming anti-GOP, and anti-MAGA.
Isuspect if these authortarian GOP and Evangelicals want a culture war, they are going to get one. Long term, they are going to regret that.
Book bannings, war on birth control, GOP witch hunts in Congress, destruction of Social Security, more massive tax cuts for the rich, it is going to be a bad mix of bad culture war, bad economic policies, and general anti- intellectualism that is long term beginning to doom right wing culture wars, politics and general incompetence.
Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.
WCB
The internet is giving good reasons to doubt the existence of God to young cohorts.
DeleteJust shows that the youth aren't being taught how to think critically.
WCB,
DeleteIt's amazing how people like you seem to be stuck in a perpetual time warp to the Bush era. It's like you don't know what is happening. You people remind me of the boomers who still think that Russia is a communist country.
WCB, you need sources other than the left-wing media. Not a single book is illegal to write, publish, buy, sell, or read in the state of Florida. DeSantis has only made it more difficult to have books in elementary school libraries and classrooms that are inappropriate for elementary school children. He illustrated that brilliantly when he gave a press conference about books taken out of school libraries. When he showed illustrations from the books, the news organizations in attendance cut their feeds because of their own rules against explicit materials. Do you actually want to take the position that keeping sexually explicit material out of the hands of elementary school children is fascism? If so, you deserve the label "groomer." His "bad economic policies" have Florida booming economically. Our unemployment rate is lower than the national average, and more people are moving into Florida than any other state in the union. And please do share the slightest evidence of a "war on birth control." He has banned abortion after six weeks, when there is a fetal heartbeat. That is a war on murder, not "birth control." Of course, I suspect logic and evidence are lost on someone like you when there's a good lefty rhetorical flourish to be had.
Delete"You people remind me of the boomers who still think that Russia is a communist country."
DeleteI'm not sure I have met any such people. However, if any Demonicrat Party "boomers" did believe that, they would no doubt take a much more positive stance toward Russia.
There's a Stalinist marching termite heart lurking inside most of them; as evidenced by their committment to, or at least satisfaction with, the principles of Vyshinsky and Krylenko being advanced in our current legal and political environments.
I wonder if the left will ever screw up the courage to publically face the anthropological implications of their own nominalism. My guess, is not. Well, not until the point they are herding those portions of the populace they despise as bitter clingers and deplorables, into cattle cars destined for reeducation and other, camps.
Only then, when the powerless and pathetically naive are pleading with them "in the name of 'humanity' ", will they sneer and reply, "Didn't you know you fool, that we never really believed in any such thing? Of course you did. You were just afraid to admit it to yourself. So despite all the evidence right before your eyes, you swallowed our 'common humanity' rhetoric as if we meant it. You did this because you were cowardly and because believing our obvious lie was comforting"'
The old question regarding a tree falling in a forrest with no one there to hear it, is boring. Much more interesting is the question, " If the Churchlands are right about mind and will, what does that make them in relation to you, morally speaking and in terms of possibilities and duties?
No wonder the s##t people of the left are always jabbering on about "empathy" when they imagine that their necks might be at risk. Considering how they have stripped the deck, it is the only card left which they have to play.
Kevin
Delete--The internet is giving good reasons to doubt the existence of God to young cohorts.
"Just shows that the youth aren't being taught how to think critically."
Critical thinking is what leads reasonable people to reject the speculation of god.
There are no sound arguments for the existence of god on offer, none at all. Every argument for the existence of god in general circulation is unsound, all of them without exception.
Critical thinking leads to atheism when one is committed to elimination of false premises and invalid logic.
Theism is for those who do not value true premises in combination with valid logic.
@Stardusty
DeleteThe natural culmination of critical consciousness is the female penis.
I really don’t understand the aversion that some people have to a culture war. If you have two competing cultural ideologies, your choices are either war or surrender.
ReplyDeleteThe enlightenment experiment where it was posited we could just agree to disagree on a bunch of issues has clearly failed.
Cannot seem to get the full essay? Can you post it here?
ReplyDeleteIt has a paywall my dude. :)
DeleteAnonymous and Norm,
DeleteI've just read it, so it's now behind the paywall.
Pardon me, I mean it's now out from the paywall.
Delete
ReplyDeleteI think it makes sense to say that cultural issues are relevant and that economic issues in fact presuppose cultural norms and attitudes. This is very true and shouldn't be written off. At the same time though, abstract principles and concrete political realities have always been divergent of each other. As much as we lament that fact, it's something with which we have to come to terms with. Unfortunately you have to choose which culture war issues to fight politically and which ones to fight at the grass roots level. The scaling of those issues may not meet our standards. It would have been great if along side opposition to radical gender theory, abortion was a winning issue for Conservatives at the national stage but unfortunately it is not. Take the 2016 Presidential election for example, Trumps main pitch was to the working class even though he paid occasional lip service to the traditional bases. Prof Feser mentioned abortion as a cultural issue which the left is focused on. But the way, they use the issue is by framing it in economic terms to the middle class who brought the message during the mid terms. The phenomenon of the barstool conservative is very relevant here. I recommend Nate Hochman's article on it. As conservatives the political mistake we make is assuming that if we experience political success in some area, it means the general public is on board with the entire agenda which is just not true.
As a political strategy it just seems impractical to expect a working class family to consider the cultural issues apart from the economic issues unless you offer some economic tie ins. That's why it's prudent to suggest significant family subsidies while touting more stringent abortion laws. It will attract familes and perhaps even encourage people to start families. This doesn't entail that economic issues are more important then the cultural issues or that economic issues are more important then abortion. It's just smart strategy. Obviously in principle a family should vote for a pro life policy irrespective of their economic state.
ReplyDeleteIt would also be practical to avoid demanding a national abortion law until more favorable political climate emerges. The fact that it is atleast possible in theory is a victory in and of itself but we must be patient. In state policy it would be wise to let the usual exceptions (life of the mother etc) remain given that a lot of them are debated by pro lifers themselves. I was reading Prummer's hand book of moral theology the other day, it is interesting to consider his opinion on the Craniotomy procedure when the mother's life is at stake, Even though he concludes that it is an act of killing and hence shouldn't be permitted, at the same time he asks us to be lenient on the doctor.
To quote
"Craniotomy is the direct killing of an innocent person which is always forbidden. as is evident from previous paragraphs. Thus the Sacred
Office (May 24. 1884 and Aug. 19. 1889) gave the following reply: It cannot be safely that craniotomy is permissible. Not only can it not be safely taught that craniotomy is permissible.but it is also completely unlawful, as is evident from the reply of the Holy Office (July 24,1895).In practice one may sometimes leave in good faith those doctors who have recourse to craniotomy as the only means of saving the life of the mother. In such circumstances it would be difficult to convince them that such an operation is unlawful.-Other means which can be used to save the mother and the child on such occasions ale: caesarean section. symphysiotomy. pubiotomy."
I think a complete vision, of what a society that implements catholic social teaching would be like,should be developed. It should include an economic vision as well. It's important when we try to convince people because they tend to bring up the case of Phillipines which is arguably the closest to catholic social teaching but is really not flourishing on the economic front to say the least. People then blame it on catholic social teaching which is obviously not true. Hence there is a need for clarity
ReplyDeleteAnd Seriously....(this might stir up some tension)
But what's the deal with Integralism ?
I don't know how it went from the fringe margins to being touted by some of the most respected catholic intellectuals. Sure, ideally the state recognises the Church, but in this case the ideal is borderline utopian. Fr James Dominic Rooney has done an excellent job of criticising it. Any integralist should respond to it seriously. But just on the face of it, how will you get the protestants to go along with it, let alone the Non-Christians and Liberals. How can one even think of banning non-christians and other faiths from preaching or converting ? Especially when catholic missionaries all over the world are fighting for exactly the opposite right. The right to preach the Gospel, have people hear them out and decide for themselves instead of the authoritarian Governments who ban conversions. The integralists tend to retort by saying that other faiths and practices should be curbed in order to preserve the catholic identity of a state. Keeping aside the questionable merits of the statement itself, when was the USA ever "Catholic"?
This shift of thinking within certain catholic circles is so wild that from being constitutional orginalists , they started agreeing with the left ny saying that the constitution has to be re-written. Only they want to re-write it to recognise the Church.
It's not even an exaggeration, Prof. Adrian Vermulle is quite open about it.
I could go on and on but all I will say is and this is very respectfully l, It ain't gonna happen. As beautiful as it may sound , it is almost impossible perhaps even until the second coming, sad to say.
So it's important that people sober up and try to achieve the best solution within the existing framework. Grassroots is very important, just spreading the truth about the churxh teachings on sexuality (Abstinence until marriage, the complementary nature of man amd women) can go a long way even if the legal endeavor is not successful. An active butill framed law can be rendered inefficacious if the people act morally.
Nuff said.
Here's what Wikipedia says about Vermulle's "common-good constitutionalism":
DeleteCommon good constitutionalism is a legal theory formulated by Harvard Law Professor Adrian Vermeule that asserts that “the central aim of the constitutional order is to promote good rule, not to ‘protect liberty’ as an end in itself”
And here's what Blessed John C. Wright has to say about the common good:
This is the whole excuse and justification of Marxism: hatred in the name of common good , mass- torture in the name of common good , scientifically organized censorship, falsehood, deception and self-deception in the name of common good , mass-starvation in the name of common good , sadism in the name of common good , atheism, genocide, and the suicide of civilization in the name of common good , and infinite evil in the name of the common good, it requires no further warning from me to caution men not to trust uncritically those things done in the name of the common good.
Give me Liberty or give me death!
"infinite evil in the name of the common good"
DeleteYes, that is the Jesus hell, infinite evil perpetrated by god on the excuse of a greater good.
I say we should start a culture war to end the absurd acceptance of infinite evil perpetrated by god on the topsy turvy notion that infinite evil is somehow needed to achieve a greater good.
@StardustyPsyche
DeleteCorrection: Orthodox Christianity teaches that eternal damnation is not done for the sake of the common good. It is done to defend God's glory.
"Orthodox Christianity teaches that eternal damnation is not done for the sake of the common good. It is done to defend God's glory."
DeleteThen Orthodox Christianity is even more vile that that which uses the excuse of a greater good.
Human souls must suffer infinite evil perpetrated by a being so sadistically narcissistic as to find glorification of himself in the infinite suffering of others.
There is your Christian morality.
Whenever a psuedo-conservative talks about the culture war being a distraction, he is being disingenuous. What he is essentially saying is that he agrees with liberalism and those that do not should remain quiet. Culture is the collective sum of a nations social institutions, achievements, customs, and traditions. To give up the culture is to give up on life.
ReplyDeleteI think the culture wars in the West today follow the narratives set by liberals, socialists and conservatives, which are all Enlightenment ideologies. Catholics are merely asked from time to time which of these greater or lesser evils they would prefer.
ReplyDeleteHow about we take up the social theory of the Church that dominated the early modern era, that of St Thomas, and especially his successors Francisco Suarez and Bellarmine. They argued with the progenitors of Enlightenment secularism (in the form of English and French social absolutism), and were backed up by a hegemonic military/political world order that followed scholastic principles (in a way the Middle Ages didn't) - ALL forgotten by poor Catholics today, most of whom thrash around grabbing ropes from our ideological opponents.
Let's get back to the WINNING Christian modernity that answered the questions we deal with today, for we are part of the same era and battle. The fact that Catholicism's triumph was undermined (largely) by Sa Majeste Tres Chretienne is no reason to give up on the winning formula. There is no other.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThe Council of Trent and Bellarmine are Aquinas speaking to the modern age. T
DeleteWCB
ReplyDeleteNorm:
"....marriage, the complementary nature of man amd women) can go a long way even if the legal endeavor is not successful.
....
Complementarianism is a bad idea. This has lead to a lot of toxic Christianity. The Southern Baptist Convention for example, just voted to not tolerate female pasrors. The idea that a wife be utterly submissive to a husband, because "Bible" is extremely toxic to young generations, especially young women. Why are younger generations abandoning religion? This is a big reason why. Because some ancient misogynist many centuries ago scribbled some toxic ideas does not mean that today everyone has to accept. Especially as our far right extremist evangelical brothers abuse the concept.
Complimentarianism is quickly becoming a dirty word to thinking people.
Want to clean out a church congregation of its young members? Let some foolish minister start preaching complimentarianism.
This little culture war religious wackiness is going to have short legs with Generation Z members.
WCB
It's just really hard to argue in good faith when you keep trotting out caricatures of someone's position.
DeleteFirst of all most theologian would clarify that the authority of a man as the head of the family exists in a very qualified sense, namely certain domains or areas of operation rather then dictatorial command over the woman. There are also certain functions or departments of the family where the women has sole discretion. You could keep referring to one example here or there which actually matches your caricatures but it still remains a caricature because it's not what your interlocutors mean when they use the term.
Secondly, between male and female there exists a biological complementary by nature of how their reproductive organs relate to each other. The penis by nature is meant for coitus and it behaves as such(swelling and so forth), the vagina into turn lubricates precisely in preparation to receive the penis. These are just facts of biology.
Whether you base your sense of morality in nature is another question but you just can't coherently deny that biological complementariness.
Other senses in which the complementary exists is parenting. If you think that a Father can match the emotional support and comfort that a mom provides to her children, you have probably never experienced motherly love. It's motherly love precisely because a only a Mother can provide that comfort.
At the same time precisely because a mom is so emotionally connected to her child, it's hard for her to allow the child to take risks. That's where dads
come in, Dad's are emotionally connected to the child but not in the way a Mom is. That's why all the sociological research and evidence shows that dad's are more likely to enroll their children in competitions and teaching them to be independent where there is always risk.
Even in general, women don't understand why men identify themselves with the teams the support as in "We lost today." even though they aren't actually part of the team. But it's just healthy male competitiveness which is rarely paralleled by women in general. Athletes are the exceptions but even there the majority of the audience for women's sports is male.
The fact that women tend to be less willing to risk their children and that men aren't as emotionally connected to their children is not some flaw because the women is better at communication and expressing emotions and men are better in encouraging competition. They "complement" each other in raising the child. And the child needs both mom and dad.
Obviously there are exceptions to the norm but as matter of human law, you don't treat the exceptions as the general rule and assign priority to the norm.
Complimentarianism is quickly becoming a dirty word to thinking people.
ReplyDeleteInteresting. Have "thinking people" figured out how nature manages human reproduction without zygotes from the 2 sexes? Nature, at least, is complementarian.
WCB
ReplyDeleteThis has nothing to do with zygotes etc. Complementarianism has unleashed toxic churches, toxic religion, toxic right winged misogyny, and it has been getting worse over the last decade. And many people have been fleeing toxic churches and their toxic cultures. For example the Southern Baptists have lost a quarter million members since 2021. Not all of this is due to complementarrianism, but it plays a big roll in the movement of people out of organized religion. The culture wars on abortion and even birth control is part of the same revulsion as women nationwide have started to get active over these issues. One of the hardest hits in recent years has been the Catholic Church. Sex abuse has hurt them badly. Along with attacks on birth control. Attempts by right winged religious leaders to enact bad policies into our nation's laws is beginning to backfire. Complementarianism is part and parcel of this nonsense and it is driving people away from religion. Especially young women.
WCB
"I really don’t understand the aversion that some people have to a culture war."
DeletePerhaps because culture war brings people into direct conflict with friends and loved ones, and that's too hard a teaching for most.
P.S. I see a litany of arbitrary assertions based on consequentialist complaints on complimentarianism (say that three times fast), all of them highly debatable. What I didn't see was an argument about the only thing that actually matters: whether complimentarianism is, you know, actually true or not.
WCB
DeleteI do not particularly care about the Bible or revealed theology in general. But I see no issue with complementarism. At its core it's the idea that the sexes are different and as such this makes certain roles more befitting for men over women or women over men. And that neither of them is superior to the other; rather, they complement each other with their own differences, sensibilities and aptitudes. How is that false? It seems perfectly sensible and based on reality as well as biological facts.
And it doesn't have to entail that women are to be "submissive" to men, either. I agree that what Paul wrote back then about women having to be silent in synagogues, submissive to their husbands etc. is a reflection of the sexist, ultra-patriarchal culture of his time (from more than 2000 years ago). But so what? That isn't something that follows from "complementarism".
True, people can use complementarism to try to defend some unfair sexist positions about how women have to be submissive, etc. But then it's up to one to argue against that.
Complementarism by itself doesn't entail that. To think that man and women should have different but complementary roles given their biological and psychological differences needn't entail the submission of women or stuff like that.
WCB
ReplyDeletehttps://www.newyorker.com/news/on-religion/the-unmaking-of-biblical-womanhood
For those of you interested, all three of you, this New Yorker article starts with a history of the 20th century form of Christian complementarianism starting mid century and how that spread rapidly in evangelical churches.
You cannot know the players without a score card.
There is now a rising reaction to this in evangelical churches. Again, a short history of that. As complementarianism is part and parcel of today's Christian Nationalism this is also going to be a political battle for years to come.
WCB
Good article. It's fitting that it was set in Waco, TX, where the most conservative federal district court in the United States is located.
DeleteWCB
ReplyDeleteTo be fair, Pope Francis has spoken out forcefully on misogyny, pay discrepensies and other issues. Pope Francis has been a champion on more inclusive women's participation in the Church.
Though on the downside, the birth control issue is still problematic.
So I would not tar the Catholic Church with the evangelical extreme complementarian brush.
Just to be clear about this.
WCB
Modern micro-economics (neoliberal economics of the Austrian school) presupposes “the household” as the starting and end point of all material economy. The household supplies the necessary entrepreneurs and employees for firms, which in turn provides goods and services back to the household. But think about this: what generated the household unit in the first place? Obviously not the firms or even the economy.
ReplyDelete