Metamodern Christianity? 

As a zoomer still in Church I definitely agree with the new wave of fascination with high church (hymns, liturgical worship, sacraments). I think young people can detect inauthenticity from institutions a mile away, and there's something about 'embracing the cringe' that screams authenticity.

Brother, I can not thank you enough for this. I have never resonated with or felt more understood by a pice of media. You voiced my thoughts and developed them further. Genuinely, Thank you

Hi Paul! As a Hindu I appreciated this presentation, and I certainly agree that it is sheer ignorance to posit all religions are the same, or that they all lead to the same experience of the Divine. Most of us Hindus prioritize a certain story or group of stories within the vastness and diversity of Hinduism. There are stories about Shiva, stories about Ma, stories about Vishnu. Virtually all religious Hindus believe that God is One, but we typically interact with particular expressed personalities of God as well as inhabit particular stories of God. Together with our individual God-to-human relationships, there are also distinct schools of philosophy/theology/metaphysics. Not everyone is interested in these organized belief systems, which can be quite complex and sophisticated. But for those who do choose to engage the Divine in that manner, there are choices to be made. And somehow we Hindus manage to live with the fact that different people are attracted by different presentations of God and also convinced of different theologies.

I am very interested in Metamodernism (hence forth, MM). I am hopeful is a path forward for society. I have been rather anti-religious, but I now am more hopeful that MM effective at bridging the gaps between people, religious and secular. There are many reasons to think that this is the way to go. For example, recent history shows, that just becoming secular doesn't make you a more humanist or better person. Data shows, that your local social paradigms are more likely to influence you once you become less religious. Meaning, in the 1960's and 70's northeastern American liberals who became secular, became more liberal. While people from more fundamentalist attitudes, will become even more extreme when they are no longer reigned in by their religious institution. Then, there is the slew of data regarding humans inability to comprehend reality. That we are telling stories, just to cope and navigate existence. So, it seems to me we need better stories, and better tools to interpret stories. Hence, MM. I am still learning, though. As much of the theory around MM has the Jordan Peterson, melee mouthed, gymnastic double speak, going on. Some of this is just my ignorance grinding at comprehension. But, I am deeply wary of selling the status quo as something new and fresh. And, I don't think the status quo is sustainable. So, if MM doesn't have the utility that can prepare people for a new and changing world, then I am not sure it is the philosophical movement I was hoping for. Lets, hope as I learn, it can effectively provide effective world view philosophy that actually helps society not just cope, but improve. For example, if you narrative can not incorporate the scientific story of climate change, or how sex and gender are not strictly binary, or how homosexuality in biologically and socially common and natural, or how there are circumstances where an abortion is necessary, though society should still be responsible, with sex. Then, we are not getting anywhere. If MM doesn't teach people to see past the propaganda of the strong man, and the ultraliberal capitalist, then, we are going to decay, and collapse. I think this is the failure of Star Trek. It posits a utopia where humanity out grows its baser side, and solves its problems. But it is weak is showing the solutions that are used to accomplish this. It uses the terrible rock bottom conceit of WW3 to reset the stage. It is easier to imagine society building back if all the existing opposing paradigms are wiped out. It uses the conceit of patriarchal space angels, ie. Vulcans, to guide humanity out of our barbarity. Both of these are not necessary. We know more that enough about our problems, and solutions to them. What we lack is the narrative and psychological tools to implement them. Sort, of what the function of religion once served for people. I think the evolved human of Star Treks, Federation, are Metamodernists. Beneficiaries of generation of Metamodernists, that have build a society that is a positive feedback loop. Making each successive generation more resilient both biologically, but also psychologically, and spiritually (just, more psychology from my perspective). The most powerful thing MM could be, would be, to bring society together, in its infinite diversity, to build a society that is harmonious, in its totality, without having to necessarily be homogenous. That is why so much new Star Trek is not as appealing. The PostModernism is taking over, and the MetaModernism hasn't quite taken ahold yet. The next great ST will be a very MM journey. I too hope, the human journey can be great, and maybe MM can get us there.

This is a great summary of what my freinds at seminary and I have been discussing for a while. Thanks for the video.

Thanks for this Paul! As a 1985 kid I relate to this a lot. Love what you’re doing.

"Embrace the cringe!!" is as a good slogan as we're likely to get for metamodernism! Paul you have an excellent radar for tracking what's going on in culture or at least it seems that way to an old timer like me (see I'm being self-aware!). John Hick was an important theologian and was a bit paradoxical about religious pluralism which he fully embraced and yet he also embraced that kind of perrenialism that asserte all religions were saying roughly the same thing. But that kind of paradoxicality makes him appropriate for metamodernism doesn't it? But you're right we must acknowledge the ways in which traditions differ particularly if one wants to be a devoted practioner I guess.

32:50 re: unitive pluralism. Yeah. Good point. The kind of perennialism or "unitive pluralism" that seeks to diminish distinctions and difference is silly-pants.

Very engaging presentation - useful - thank you

So let me see if I got this right, is the formula for Metamodernism this: "I know that this is not that awesome (self-awareness) and may not look that cool to the outside world (cringe) but ultimately it is sincere and meaningful, so I don't care and I’ll do it anyway (based)."

How about post-dialectical approach for a change?

Carry your cringe and bear it!

Paul this is so good. How would you weave the element of lived testimony or the concept of experiencing the Holy Spirit alongside the notion of informed story choosing? I hope that makes sense, thanks

You don't think that there is transcendant or universal path beyond all traditions?

Look up Ubuntu philosophy and Prout?

Some good points, but what is wrong with empire building? That is the end goal of Islam? Wouldn’t disciplining nations mean the same thing?

i’ve called myself a Postmodern Fundamentalist for like..since 1992. i hold to all the Fundamentalist theological claims -see the Fundmentals of the Faith publications from early 20th Century as few know the origin of the term or what it literally means and why you can’t be a Muslim fundamentalist - but not based on moderist as some provable logical argument. i faith in those claims with skepticism of ny sin infected epistemic organ trying to mislead me. i hold those claims by feeling then first and then thinking my life through them - the true basis of all knowlege which is faith initiated. i’d even say that the key difference between late modernism and postmodernism is M thinks to feel and P feels to think. In Jung, feeling and thinking are the two judging functions. i call feeling arational and thinking rational. the falsity of M is that some how you can think a premise into being and then think it’s conclusion - with feeling being a sort of deceptive side distraction. that’s how we get Scientism. every premise is first felt into being. it’s the arational beginning of thought that originates from spirit/conscioisness. P as criticle theory lacking in the positing of truth because such folks have a weak epistemic organ is a denatured or deficient form of P. Postmodern Fundamentalism lives by faith embracing all the miracles as literal without being subject to the literalism of criticality- the fundamentalism of the atheists. i’m really pretty sick of the Integral Christianity folks who want to transcend and exclude all those claims they can’t accept because they are actually anti-literal literalists. NOT INTEGRAL. the defecient Postmodernists are so becuse they are not filled with the Spirit and live out a satanic and luciferian mind as adversarial to their own lineage and practicing a false gnosticism.

Knowing its just a story. Its not a source of meaning.

Kern yer terk for the kingdom

Reject modernity, embrace tradition. Find the SSPX.

Is the main character in the film "Elf" an example of someone who is "embracing the cringe"?

Could be a return to fideism. But classical theism removes the cringe.

Here is a Christian that I like what he says. We could even be friends. We just won't have deep philosophical discussions on 'what is truth?' Why? Because I care about what is true regardless of where it takes me. And he cares more about the feel good message of christianity.

We have to move away from the term "oscillation" there is no oscillation, you are using tools of postmodernism to discover the inherent meaning in the modern and premodern worldviews. Its not an oscillation it is Intergration.

metamodernism is another cultural phony movement like postmodernism. Both are run by smug hipsters. We need a real postmodern movement lead by people with wisdom & who understand what real postmodernism is.

It’s a good analysis, but it misses to elaborate on the actual tenet of meta modernism - which is irony. The reason metamodern art is naive and wholesome is because it’s because it projects something that wants to criticize. Look at meme culture, many memes are realistically, naively and cutely sad and dystopian. Metamodersism invites us to reject us. The failure of woke culture is evidence of it. So your video is a metamodern projection of what we won’t be aiming at.