Metamodern Spirituality | Debating the Legacy of Modernity for Christianity (w/ Paul VanderKlay)

In this episode, I assume the modern historical-critical perspective with pastor and 'This Little Corner of the Internet' thinker @PaulVanderKlay to explore the tension points it has with the traditional-devotional lens--and to consider if and how these impasses might be transcended. Does history matter to faith and to the faithful? If so, how, when, and why? Can we avoid equivocating discussions around the "reality" of Christianity? How crucial is the nonrational? Overall, we rehearse what challenges the traditional approach to Christianity faces as it develops into modern expressions and interpretations on the way towards a metamodern instantiation.

0:00 Introduction
0:55 The "God Pivot" and Metamodernism: The Missing Modern
7:39 How Does Faith Relate to Modern & Postmodern Critical Approaches?
24:30 The Reality of Religion in Different Psycho-Social Contexts
36:18 Reality vs. History: Language as Metaphor or Fact
52:38 Worldview, Rationality, and Projection
1:04:28 "Spirit": Substance Reification vs. Transjective Relationality
1:07:22 Avoiding Equivocation and Taking Modern Science Seriously
1:20:59 Pragmatic and Developmental Hermeneutics
1:47:17 Nonrationality and the Meaning Crisis
1:59:15 Different Metamodern Spiritual Arcs: The Theological is Personal
2:16:00 Conclusion

[appoljuce]

Man, if anything in this conversation could give validation to Christianity in metamodernity it was that it produced the spiritual fruit of patience in you.

[they]

Hmm. Vanderklay at times here presents with a kind of arrogance that I find very unappealing and reminds of many Protestants that I know. “Because I’m a Christian”. Really?

[Subvisual]

Postmodernity gave a wonderful gift to traditional Christians by showing them that you don't need to accept the frame offered by modernity.

[jamesmcmann]

I lost nearly all my faith in humans' ability to know Reality, objective truth, which helped me not fuss so much about what is true and not true, and become more pragmatic. There are many ways of knowing, and they all converge on Christianity except some scientific analysis. I don't force myself to believe in the virgin birth, but nor do I care. I'm content to be agnostic as to some details, as I could be wrong. Also, the sum is worth more than it's parts, and the Christian faith is true, whether or not every dogmatic detail is literally true. The tradition, the faith is so rich and robust, I just try to engage as much as I can. My shortcomings are 1, 000 times that of the church! Last, yes, the faith has to compromise itself to a more literal/actual interpretation, especially considering its long history, which is very understandable. Most priests/pastors understand there's a more advanced level of understanding, but there's no sense in talking about it. If you know, you know. Many are of this mind, without having to fuss so much over it. It's always been this way, the church can't be everything to everyone.

[ericlimacher]

I felt frustrated by Paul's sophistry. I think he was avoiding the core issue, which I would summarize as follows:

Modern historical analysis and comparative religious studies make the falsehood of Jesus' physical resurrection at least plausible, and thus disbelief is a valid position without moral fault. Thus, if Christianity has nothing to offer a permanent disbeliever, it hasn't taken modernity seriously.

[roderickhare]

Excellent Brendan! I'm an old friend of Paul's and have been following his journey building community around his channel for over 6 years. He's doing something truly unique, and I think it points to an important aspect of addressing the "meaning crisis, " it's personal, relational, and open. He has a true pastor's heart. You asked the questions I always ask him when we talk privately, occasionally publicly, only you did it much more expertly. I found your metamodern framing to be a useful way to try to synthesize the old traditions with the increasingly complex world we now face, and you seem to be trying to do that in good faith while not glossing over the awkward incongruencies of many religious teachings. I'm here for it, well done, and I hope you speak with Paul again. There's more there.

[EmJay]

Both of you saying that you enjoyed this conversation is metamoderism, in a nutshell. If you believe dialogue will solve the meaning crisis, then at the very least, you need to be honest with yourself and others.

To use John Vervaeke's terminology to sum up metamoderism in one word, it would be "bullsh*t."

[MoeGar-ee]

I appreciate your Perspective, from my Perspectives.


Something is smelling 🐟

[mcosu]

Paul's responses did not inspire confidence in my Christian faith

[ChadTheAlcoholic]

1:26:12 this is a dull position we people have done the same thing. Through science and non religious texts we as people have done so much damage and pain and horror. When someone claims that God has healed them from their illness or made them better care for others or bright Meaning and purpose into their lives, then it negates the evil god or evil religion question. If we are going to ignore God or religion or spirituality because of evils that have played out, then we must apply the same mode or principle to math, science, art, literature, government, yada yada yada. We must allow people to believe and worship as they will. If those beliefs and rituals harm others then we address those particular instances. Not every particular scales. I hope I was clear.

[Neal_Daedalus]

1:57:30 my advice on this (feel free to disregard) is to tell a better story. The better story wins the most adherents over the long term. The metamodern story has to get better.

[MoeGar-ee]

Metamodernism sounds like its still being taken hostage by Scientism.

[christianbaxter_yt]

this is when you sit back and just say: I love the internet ; )

[MusicMissionary]

Paul is being pre-modern. He's recommending old-fashioned cognitive dissonance. I can't live like that again.

[janthonycologero]

The convergence between science, religion, and philosophy seems to be around the mystical aspects of the world traditions.

[Neal_Daedalus]

The greatest trick the Devil ever played was convincing Metamodernists he didn’t exist.

[palmyra]

Thought this was brilliant on both Brenden and Paul’s behalf.

Brenden, really appreciate you finally voicing the concerns that most of us who are still “straddling” the meaning crisis are still pointing too.

I think your appraisal is absolutely spot on.

Yes, the old/new re defining and re appraisal of what we mean by things like truth, language, symbols, “religion” and the like is great, I’ve been very sympathetic to the jordan Peterson’s, Jonathan Pageau’s and the rest…… but can it be as simple as just deconstructing the modernist frame?? I don’t think so.

[fritzstevenson]

I think it is a substantial misunderstanding to state that this conversation is "rehearse(ing) the basic modern pre-modern debate." Paul is weaving strains of post-modernism, modernism, and pre-modernism together, but it seems to me that this didn't land. It seems like this strain of modernism pulls out meaning as an rational, personal, procedural work that doesn't understand its arbitrary and disconnected telos which you would find if you applied postmodernism. I think Mr. Dempsey feels the same way about the materialistic blindspots of miracles, but modernism has a huge spiritual blindspot. Rationality and spirituality are two completely different modes. Modernism only has one mode. You've got to find a second.

No disrespect intended. Thank you for putting this on!

[jason-iyvs]

In cs Lewis miracles he proposes that it’s faulty to believe that ancient people could believe in miraculous events because they didn’t know how the world worked. Joseph was going to silently divorce Mary when he found out she was pregnant exactly because he knew how it worked. All of the miracles were notable and remembered because they are exceptions to the way that the natural world normally is.

[acuerdox]

1:28:04 the thing about these endless points of critique is that they apply to science too, you want proof for science? there aint any, there's no final answer that can finally prove any position for sure. you could throw all of those same things to any old scientist. what are you really grasping for?