As someone who grew up in a mostly agnostic household, but ultimately converted to Christianity in my adult life, I find sentiments like "There is a caution, here, for strands of the renewed interest in Christianity that seem focused on battling non-Christian or ‘woke’ forms of thought and ways of living" to somewhat miss the mark in describing why people come to the religion. I don't think people come to Christ so that they can debate liberal atheists, but because they are disenfranchised by the current state of society: modern spirituality feels hollow, and we are plagued with social issues caused by general immorality.
I also find statements like "Watts tried to suggest that a truly all-inclusive God would not be bound by Western logic, with its insistence on mutually exclusive propositions. In Asia, argued Watts, one found not just ‘either-or’ forms of logic but ‘both-and’ forms, too." to reflect a shallow view of Christianity. For instance, ancient Jews (not westerners) pioneered the idea of a "a truly all-inclusive" god, while also creating a literary tradition (the old testament) full of contradictions and "either-or" forms of logic. Another example would be that even though the catechism creates definitive "logical" doctrine for the Catholic church, the Eucharist which is practiced every Sunday fully embraces mysticism.
There's depth in the Christian community (as there's always been, of course). I think you're right that a fundamental driver of conversion is people looking for a home, but a running problem for the church today, and especially for many of the more evangelical varieties, is the tail wagging the dog, so to speak - the parishioners pushing the priests, as opposed to the priest guiding the parish. There are churches who provide welcome homes for people and who build their communities towards love and support of their fellow people, but there are also plenty churches who see themselves as the armies of the culture war, and whose members indeed joined because that appealed to them.
Incidentally, re: "modern spirituality feels hollow" - there was a good article in the Atlantic* recently arguing that the fundamental problem for the modern church isn't that it asks too much of its members, but that it asks too little - that by not requiring its members to actually demonstrate their beliefs, it robs those beliefs of any tangibility and makes the whole exercise hollow.
I'm not a Christian, but I do think there was something lost in the country when we discarded the church as a common moral frame - the only other shared philosophical framework we have is the market, and whatever the limits of the church, the morals of the market seem to be making for a much colder society.
> I do think there was something lost in the country when we discarded the church as a common moral frame
My hope, disguised as a hypothesis, is that we're gradually shedding the superstitions of our past, and in so doing, are descending, albeit temporarily, into a local minimum. Eventually, we'll find our way up to a higher peak where compassion and collaboration are the order of the day without attachment to unfounded beliefs.
>the only other shared philosophical framework we have is the market, and whatever the limits of the church, the morals of the market seem to be making for a much colder society.
If things are colder, it's not amorality, it's colder as a side effect of cultivated self pre-occupation. For the "market" depends upon narcissism to keep consumers keep consuming. It's getting more pronounced with each successive generation.
Adam Curtis - The Century of the Self is the long history of how and why:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=eJ3RzGoQC4s&pp=ygUTY2VudHVyeSBvZ...
I have just recently discovered Watts, but I think he may have agreed.
“Watts left formal Zen training in New York because the method of the teacher did not suit him. He was not ordained as a Zen monk, but he felt a need to find a vocational outlet for his philosophical inclinations. He entered Seabury-Western Theological Seminary, an Episcopal (Anglican) school in Evanston, Illinois, where he studied Christian scriptures, theology, and church history. He attempted to work out a blend of contemporary Christian worship, mystical Christianity, and Asian philosophy. Watts was awarded a master's degree in theology in response to his thesis, which he published as a popular edition under the title Behold the Spirit: A Study in the Necessity of Mystical Religion.
He later published Myth & Ritual in Christianity (1953), an eisegesis of traditional Roman Catholic doctrine and ritual in Buddhist terms. However, the pattern was set, in that Watts did not hide his dislike for religious outlooks that he decided were dour, guilt-ridden, or militantly proselytizing—no matter if they were found within Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, or Buddhism.”
Thank you for the added context about his beliefs, as I am not too familiar with his works and was going off of what I read in the article.
I do not share his disdain though for the "dour, guilt-ridden, or militantly proselytizing" aspects of Christianity. This isn't really as much of an argument as it is a personal outlook: those attributes are what makes Christianity compelling to me, and why some eastern or agnostic forms of spiritualism feel hollow.
The "dour, guilt-ridden, or militantly proselytizing" are what make Christianity compelling for you? The first 2 I could see as personal choice but isn't "militantly" anything sorta anti-christian? (I'm an agnostic, so what do I know...)
Proselytizing, which is to say converting, in Christianity is seen as a positive, and to be “militantly proselytizing” is not meant as a literal “militant” but as “vigorous and active”. Christianity believes very much in exposing (and thus saving) as many souls to God as possible in a (naturally) non-violent way.
And the main way to proselytize in modern churches is via helping the less fortunate in local communities and with mission trips to third-world countries, which is certainly compelling.
I would appreciate you expounding on how those traits generate interest on your part. I think many people might find those rather off-putting - whether in an institution, a group, or a person.
> For instance, ancient Jews (not westerners) pioneered the idea of a "a truly all-inclusive" god
I don't know about. I've read that in ancient Judaism, Yahweh began as one god among many and he was theirs ("I'm your God / have no gods before me"). He evolved into the monotheistic entity of today, but even today my perception is that Judaism doesn't focus on proselytization and considers him theirs more or less. I'd chalk the more universal, inclusive God up to early Christians, though I suppose you could call them Jews, and they weren't "western" anyway.
Edit: and "universal" and "inclusive" could also mean at the point of a sword for most of the Church's history.
Indeed. For example the word Elohim used to convey the meaning of 'Gods' to Jews in antiquity but evolved to mean 'God', referring to YHWH alone.
My understanding of the book of Isaiah is that it is about how the people of Israel came to abandon worship of lesser gods such as Ba'al and came to see YHWH as their God and saviour who delivered them from Babylonian captivity.
I'm not a biblical scholar, so I'm lacking the details and sources I should have, but there are parts of the torah with clear indications of universalist ideas about God and morals. What is important to remember is that the Hebrew bible and the religious ideas of ancient Judaism were not monolithic. Their beliefs and scriptures were the product of many people, sometimes in different geographic regions, developed, edited, and transcribed repeatedly over the course of more than a thousand years.
This is pushed by some scholars but outright rejected by most and we do not have a good understanding of where YHWH worship came from. The scholars that do push this rely on etymological arguments that mix up some of the many, many names Canaanites/Hebrews/semites used for gods.
Going for broad strokes here, but Western philosophy and religions are mostly searching for an “objective” God, as it were, as something that must be proven. And while the early Christian cult had gnosticism and other strands, those mostly got snuffed out as it became more of an established religion and part of the power balance.
The current day image and majority of the history of Christianity has always been problematic to me, as in “believe or be guilty”, with little grey or choice. When I went to a service a few years ago to a fairly mainstream easygoing church here, this guilt was still pretty much core of the teaching. That to me pretty much qualifies as “either-or” and all but inclusive.
Instead in some Eastern philosophies (the yoga school and Daoism, probably others) focus on the subjective experience. In the yoga school for instance it allows us to connect to mind, our purusha (soul like quality) and find other teachings and qualities within ourselves. Something that Alan Watts also emphasized in his book “Wisdom of Insecurity”
Current day spirituality is broad and commercialized and has its own problems due to poor teachers who start with barely 200h of study, which is not conducive or effective on the whole.
> For instance, ancient Jews (not westerners) pioneered the idea of a "a truly all-inclusive" god, while also creating a literary tradition (the old testament) full of contradictions and "either-or" forms of logic.
Ehhhh, that's not quite how it happened. In the Bronze Age everyone was doing pantheons. This was a good idea because tribes who started gaining power in this period were exploring empire-building and pantheons allow for a high degree of syncretism - you absorb the conquered gods into your own structure, most of the peasants don't even notice a change.
The ancient Israelites (Jews and Samaritans) acknowledged those pantheons, but chose to only worship the god who was viewed as being at the top of the Canaanite pantheon - El (Israel literally meaning "struggles with El"). Through the various captivities and exiles and the Bronze Age collapse, the lower gods on the pantheon faded to history and it became more of the modern idea of an all-encompassing god.
There is definitely also some Christianizing of European Jews that happened for obvious reasons, so it's hard to separate out how much of modern Jewish thought is a reflection of this. Especially with the Ashkenazim who had a lot of "Great Awakening" style religious activity around the same time it was happening in colonial and post-Revolutionary America.
That citation continues with "‘Cultural Christianity’ of this kind [..]", and it seems to me that in context, it's sufficiently qualified that I don't consider it to be problematic. It's pretty clear it's criticizing a very specific section of 'Cultural Christians', and not all 'Cultural Christians', much less all Christians.
One of the reasons I hesitate to call myself a 'Cultural Christian' is exactly due to the association with these kind of people, whom I find to be rather unpleasant.
Inclusivity and universalism is largely a legacy of Greek thought, and it’s relevance or non-relevance to the new movement of Christianity was an important topic in the first few centuries after Christ.
As a Catholic convert (long journey from born in a Muslim country -> Atheism -> Nihilism -> Agnosticism -> Catholicism) I agree with what you said.
I am not interested in arguing with people here about why God exists and Christianity is the truth but I wanted to add that I think there is a lot more than just debating "liberals" which attracts people to Christianity: the Sacraments, community, sense of purpose, temperance, life of service and let's not forget beauty, arts and philosophy; all of which are intertwined with Christianity.
You can argue that the above is not exclusive to "religion" and you would probably be right however organized religion put those well within one's reach with ease and it just so happens that the dominant religion on the West is Christianity; thus we are seeing many people return to Church as a result.
Perhaps battling non-Christian and "woke" is a pathway in for some but that phase doesn't last very long and what truly converts people at the end is Love, Scripture, Community and the Works.
I also find statements like "Watts tried to suggest that a truly all-inclusive God would not be bound by Western logic, with its insistence on mutually exclusive propositions. In Asia, argued Watts, one found not just ‘either-or’ forms of logic but ‘both-and’ forms, too." to reflect a shallow view of Christianity. For instance, ancient Jews (not westerners) pioneered the idea of a "a truly all-inclusive" god, while also creating a literary tradition (the old testament) full of contradictions and "either-or" forms of logic. Another example would be that even though the catechism creates definitive "logical" doctrine for the Catholic church, the Eucharist which is practiced every Sunday fully embraces mysticism.