Metamodern Spirituality | Metamodern Christianity (w/ Brendan Graham Dempsey)

[@Rsvohi]

It would be interesting to hear you discuss this with Jonathan Pageau.

[@aphiggs8657]

Pageau needs a deeper understanding of metamodernism before he can field this discussion.

[@Juan-tb2ww]

Does he believe the resurrection was a historical event?

[@RichardCosci]

I couldn’t agree more. I am a big fan of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin & Ilia Delio’s continuation of his work. I like your ideas about “learning “, and how they put some practical flesh on the bones of Chardin’s Cosmogenisis & Christogenisis, explicating the natural processes of human growth throughout life. Speaking of process, Process Philosophy & Theology would tie in very nicely with your views, God as “lure”. We can choose to stay the same, regress or grow forward.

[@jerrypeters1157]

Wow. For anyone to present a sort of synopsis on a history with the divine (which is incredibly ballsy, for a lack of a better word), i think your version is truly impressive. And you made it look easy. Humanities' developed maturity into an updated, contemporary, dare i say - 'relevant' perspective of spirituality through the Judeo-Christian journey invigorates me to travel back through history to admire it all, with that perspective. And not just travel back through the Judeo-Christian journey, but also through the history of other faiths - for the purpose of exploring an expansive theology capable of including, also, a mature understanding of theologies across the globe. And with such a broad and in-depth view of the divine, my curiousity naturally progresses to an exploration of an individual's daily practice/expression of a relationship with the divine. And i wonder what future generations' exploration, learning, expressing of their own spirituality will look like, too. Whew! Thanks for what you do, Brendan!

[@williambranch4283]

WWDLS ... what would Dali Lama say? You have to get beyond WWJS ;-)

[@parksgore]

Hey man- this came at a really great time for me. Right as soon as the historical critical and traditional devotional lens were reaching a point of ultimate tension within me, I happen to find your lectures. Please, keep going- I love the work you’re doing. Christ is king brother.

[@Footnotes2Plato]

I appreciate the idea of the Bible as a record of a learning process. Reminds me of Jung’s take in “Answer to Job,” though of course in that case Jung also sees it as a learning process for God-as-the-unconscious. I suppose I am left wanting a deeper engagement with mystical and esoteric Christianity, especially with Schelling’s late philosophy of mythology and revelation, with Owen Barfield’s “Saving the Appearance” and the deeper sense of an evolution of consciousness. Mark Vernon’s recent book “A Secret History of Christianity: Jesus, The Last Inkling, And The Evolution Of Consciousness” comes to mind… have you read it?

[@JMathiasBennett]

I appreciate what you are sharing Brendan.. (For contacts, I grew up as Christian, in multiple different protestant denominations, then stepped away from the church in 2009, not because I stopped believing in the core of what Jesus came to share, but because through spiritual downloads (I learned how to read the Akashic Records, then received a massive download of lifetimes worth of information in three years ) my perspective expanded so far such that if I Considered and referred to myself as Christian, it would confuse both Christians and non-Christians… I also recognized at that point, I could support the church and Christians to grow and expand outside the church far better than I ever could if I was locating myself within the church. I still am absolutely in the service of the Divine to support the raising of consciousness here on this planet.. some reflections: I hear everything you’re saying about growing complexity, it reminds me of spiral dynamics, which I think, is touching on similar themes, and how perhaps “meta-modern, spirituality” is roughly reminiscent of “tier 2” integration of value systems, Where it is the first “level” that recognizes and acknowledges all value systems before it. Also, a general comment is that a lot of what you shared, seems to be stemming from a classical for/romantic/western/scientific way of thinking, which, basically, slices and dices/or distinguishes Further and further, with increasing complexity.. in a linear progression… As opposed to seeing the universe as existing in circular processes, as well as having a counter juxtaposition of integration / unity /wholeness… In contrast to the linear/western/scientific approach. Another thought that comes to mind, is that everything you were sharing, about the increasing complexity,… The idea that this process has actually happened countless times all across the galaxy, and we are just experiencing that for ourselves on our planet, at this particular time. For example, the Buddhists have a 26,000 year calendar. (Approximately) And also reference unfathomable timescales - shyalpas - Far larger than anything that is referenced within Christianity or Judaism… So it makes you wonder what kind of truth or reality they have tapped into such that they are having that level and breath of conversation… Just some thoughts… if you’d be interested in having a conversation on your show, or I could share more information if you’d like, I’m happy to. Best, Mathias

[@benhennessy-garside2302]

Genuine moments of like "F..k yeah!" listening to this... Very much appreciate it Brendan. I really want to listen to someone talk through a version of this which resonates with Islam. Perhaps Jared is the guy for this, or could he put you onto someone else? As you say, I think any Meta-modern religion needs to sit alongside all the others. Could this view of Christianity be held inside an Islamic Metamodernism and vice versa? Not to mention Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Paganisms etc. I feel like there'd need to be deep and serious scholars of each major (and minor) faith group interpenetrating each other for this work.

[@williambranch4283]

Salafism is a suicidal faith. Muslim Sufism and Universalist Sufism address this.

[@christianbaxter_yt]

This was impressive. I would love to engage your thoughts on this further.

[@Carlos.Explains]

Amazing Brendan, wonderful listen!

[@fritzstevenson7850]

I appreciate the insight into and expanded understanding of your perspective after your PVK video. I can see some aspects of what you are talking about already at work. My main concern with meta-modernism is that it doesn't scale and is especially prone to errors in relevance realization. Postmodernism was already a philosophy that can't be practically wielded by common people and minds (I count myself in this category). I find it unimaginable that we would, en masse, incorporate the truth of all worldviews including postmodernism into a singular unified one that can even be described, or, yet further, applied independently at an individual level while still being congruous in practice. It would be like a palimpsest of vague equivocating chimeric worldviews amounting in sum to a sort of (hopefully) tolerant anarchy. With postmodernism there was a sort of spiritual minimization via nihilism, but with Metamodernism it would be a permutational maximalism. I think that this shift is in fact happening to some extent, and I'm not arguing that the perspective is entirely wrong or regressive, but I see a pragmatic gap in its application. Also It seems like this worldview is one that would rely heavily on intuitive, artistic, right brain negotiation: an element that is atrophied in today's environment of hyper-mediated, mechanistic materialism.

[@williambranch4283]

Vervaecke academicism is neo-Thomism.

[@aeonian4560]

Great. This was very impressive. I believe you are expressing themes and lines of thinking that many millions of Christians are struggling with but aren't as sophisticated as you, or lacking a language that goes beyond negation or affirmation of the Christianity they are offered. If you get Methamodern Christianity right it could meet a lot of people right where they are and help them orient.

[@michawojciechowski1175]

I think we all (the metamodern front people) feel the necessity of breaking through the last pieces of disconnection between the notion of 'the real' and 'not real', finding it as a spectrum, and absorbing "miracles" like the Ascension into that spectrum with full respect to Modernism and Post-Modernism. I find Richard Rohr's Universal Christ the most helpful book on that field. I feel this strong necessity to break that disconnection cause I almost physically (ha ha) know it. A framework I use to tackle above is sthg I whish you could use when talking to Paul - the 'So what?' framework. If I consider Jesus as a historical figure who physically full-body rose from the dead, but not in the exact same way as a random physically living dude walking down the streets of Jerusalem, but slightly farther away on the spectrum of 'the real', with more balance on the symbolic side, then so what? The effects of both this and Paul's approach are the same - believing that Christ still matters, and that following Christ means following a pattern of accessing Kingdom of heaven or Nirvana.

[@redtrek2153]

This is good and a calling for more mature, self-reflective approaches. Though consider how to intertwine it with scripture in specific ways. Ephesians 4 could be one example.

[@das3841]

Hi Brendan, how is the meta-modern different from post-secularity?

[@williambranch4283]

It is the numinous that attracts people to practice religion. But it happens across humanity and cultures. It takes a lot of well-developed insider argumentation to choose one over another, if it is conversion based instead of inherited.

[@vngelicath1580]

I'm very sympathetic to this dialectical view of religious development, I do wonder however, how do we distinguish this or prevent this from evolving into something other than Christianity (for those of us who care about creedal orthodoxy while also seeking to evolve) but nonetheless that which grew out of it? Such as dialectical materialism developing into the Marxist project (the idea of God evolving into the Brotherhood of man, etcetera...) and other such successor religions to Christianity.

[@missh1774]

This makes alot of sense. Thank you.

[@ericlessard5969]

Can the integration of old traditions like Carmel Monastic traditions and their associated mystics be helpful for meta modern thinking?

[@williambranch4283]

Monastic and mystical shows the way. But not a cultus worshipping: The Bomb" as in the second Planet of the Apes movie.

[@ericlessard5969]

@@williambranch4283 by that you mean the practice trumps the content?

[@IngridHurwitz]

13:38 love it. ZPD and Vygotsky. Moon is not "ball-y" and bird is not "Guck" (Duck), as my son used to say when he was tiny.

[@user-yg1di4ui1t]

Well said, totally agree. It does seem that each of the developmental paradigms tend to fixate on only viewing religion within their own boundaries. This is why religious fundamentalists of the modern sort double down on the physical miracles and historicity of the Bible and this is how you get young earth creationism. On the flip side of the coin the new atheists who are also firmly modern tend to focus on the same things. Trying to shoehorn scientific and modern historical standards to a time in which such perspectives were not fully developed or non-existent seems out of place. The premodern asserts no change has taken place, that the religion has always been and always be the same while the postmodern is deeply cynical as to the motivations of religious traditions and that the existence of different perspectives is proof of no objective truth. I do agree that religions and spirituality has evolved over time and continues to this day. We can apply Thomas Kuhn’s evolutionary thesis of scientific paradigms to religion as well. Why assume our ancestors got theology right the first time? Why do we insist they should have gotten the physical nature of existence correct from the onsett? We don’t assume a toddler should know calculus or think a toddler is a deficient adult. Given that each of the paradigms have their problems what do they have to offer? The premodern traditional preserves and carries forward truths thru the process of selection over time rather than conscious deliberation. Some things endure over time because they are true and or serve a purpose to our flourishing. Toxic and detrimental ideas, behaviors and traditions get culled and pruned. To do away with tradition altogether is like starting at square one. This doesn’t work because most likely one smuggles in traditional values and assumptions unknowingly and even if such a project is successful you’ve created another tradition. Tradition serves as the baseline. The modern perspective helps us consciously test the traditional assertions to see if they correspond to reality and categorize them. The Genisis creation story doesn’t correspond to the physical evidence we have discovered so to categorize it as a historical fact as opposed to a symbolic allegory is an error. However, the story has value beyond it’s historical claims and perhaps that is why it has persisted thru time. The postmodern has helps to incorporate other perspectives and traditions. This occurred when the Jewish tradition came into contact with Greek philosophy giving us Christianity. So to summarize, the premodern traditional are the shoulders of giants we stand upon, the modern is the sword by which we sort and analyze and the postmodern is how we enfold new perspectives to take advantage of other traditional paradigms.

[@grixlipanda287]

I appreciate these long form philosophical videos. From the opening statements, I understood that postmodernism calls for everything to be relativised or place on an equal footing, so-called 'differentiation'. From this, the teachings of Judaism with its circumcision, animal sacrifice rites and racial supremacist teachings is placed on an equal footing with Christianity. Just because you say this, does not make it true, but lets grant that for the sake of argument. Now we have metamodernism which is looking to integrate these two different and distinct ideologies or religions. What would that even look like? JudeoChristianity? Basically the reformists in the America that support Israel? Supporting oppression and genocide is not Christian, so by integrating two religions you destroy one or the other or both. Are you advocating for a destructive philosophy. You haven't made your intentions clear. This could be because you are operating from an intellectual capacity and ignoring the practical aspects of what you are actually advocating for.

[@bobyu5]

Traditionalism rejected animistic, magical worldview; modernism rejected traditionalism; postmodernism rejected modernism; yet metamodernism includes postmodernism, modernism and even traditionalism and magical worldview. Why? Metamodernism can be a meta-worldview in that it is a worldview about worldviews. Unlike the previous worldviews, it does not automatically default to an antagonistic attitude. If it was just one more typical worldview emerging today, it would have rejected postmodernism, but it does not do so. Hence metamodernism is something special, a jump into a different kind of developmental space. If postmodernism is the 4th floor of a building, then metamodernism is not merely the 5th floor - it is the building itself, which sees the current floors and a new floor can be built. Each cultural code is a finite boundary of roughly defined moral, religious, and cultural values. There is a self-enclosure associated with each code. Metamodern mind is suddenly aware of the finite boundary of each code, no matter how complex it may be, and acknowledges that it is also a finite boundary of roughly cohesive moral, religious and cultural values. Yet by virtue of being aware of its own self-enclosure, it discloses to the further frontiers of development: it has moved from self-enclosure to self-disclosure. Thus as stated in the video, the motif of learning becomes crucial because learning is never ending. Each code, no matter how sophisticated it may get, is incomplete, for there can be a new code that supersedes the old one. Metamodernism through self-disclosure is open to the past and open to the future. It is never arrested at a particular manifestation. Previous cultural codes were more like software that could accumulate all kinds of data, but metamodernism is a software that can rewrite itself. Thus the following adjectives may be associated with metamodernism: open, transformative, fluid. Scientific and secular minded people embracing traditional religion is a sign of proto-metamodernism. Traditional religion does not have to be reconfigured to suit the palate of the scientific people for the inclusion of the religion is decided not by the relevant logic of modernism or postmodernism but by a different kind of metamodern logic. Inclusion of the traditional worldview defies the presumptive, unidirectional, chronological nature of psycho-cultural development (from lower to higher) for one is supposed to embrace the liberal, scientifical worldview after having mastered the mythic worldview, but something else is happening. It is as if the metamodernism idea of development is bidirectional - one develops into the future and into the past, or transcendence and immanence. It is as if metamodernism is global and it is situated in the timeless looking at the time and moving from one temporal and physical and cultural location to another, in a kind of time travelling way. Development is historical and ahistorical. Bonnitta Roy called this place "aperspectival" quoting Jean Gebser. Thus the proto-metamodernism is not merely being aware of old worldviews but actually enacting and inhabiting them. Metamodernism is thus a leap from knowing to being where epistemological codes multiply and flourish through various perspectives in the service of ontological development or maturation.

[@badoedipus2551]

I mean I thought this was bad ass? Up till this points there were things I thought were a little off.. or I didn’t quite understand right… but this cleared it up in a, I think, profound and powerful way.. a least for me.

[@ChrisSudlik]

Are you advocating a perscriptivist program to push forward metamodern christianity as a concept? Because from where I'm sitting Christianity has been the chief force preventing revelation for the past 700 years, from the rejection of the hard sciences and the bitter opposition to astronomy and evolution, to the embrace of fascism and strong turn against worker solidarity and community building. There's about 10 churches within a mile of me and none of them does anything for the public or anyone who isn't themselves a member of the church, all of them preach hatred, bigotry, and far right wing slumlord economics.

[@jonathanhollingsworth9258]

I agree with you and I hear it in his presentation that Christianity is not the final or perfect religious culture. It emerges from certain pivotal shifts in human history yet even within it is the notion that God is present as Holy Spirit to continue revelation, divine activity in the world and our growth as a species and planetary community. Due to institutionalization the major historical moves forward forms into frozen forms of religion. Reformed and always reforming indeed lest we refuse the call forward and even regress into previous modes of social religion and life. This work of metamodern Christianity currently seems to be in seminal phase. Movement building and influence in established communities are still in the future.

[@ChrisSudlik]

@@jonathanhollingsworth9258 I'm betting people like me organically working for a better tomorrow will create metamodern christian churches via movements like the poor people's campaign, socialism, anti-colonialism before this approach does. To be perfectly honest, I'd rank trinitarian christianity as one of the least adaptable to social cause and development because of how abstracted the religious metaphors become from the values, as compared with systems like Buddhism that contain plentiful scripture and dialectical process prescriptions for advancing the practice, within itself, or perhaps at the top of this list, the massively adaptable and flexible tradition of the "Great Mystery" in indigenous cultures of the wider Iroquian language family group. Even within Christianity, those that focus less on the holy ghost and spirit and more on the sermon on the mount seems to be far more adaptable and growth oriented than the obey or hellfire trinitarian tradition.

[@baalusk2662]

was Jesus male?

[@williambranch4283]

No, from a Cosmic Christ POV ;-) ... he wasn't Jewish, Christian or even human!

[@baalusk2662]

@@williambranch4283 the Bible refers to him as the son of God, but doesn't mention cis/trans

[@dannysierra8740]

Hello

[@mcapello8836]

Pretty disappointing to hear widely discredited 19th-century evolutionary theories of religion trotted out here without much context or criticism. It's unclear how metamodernism can hope to integrate previous paradigms of thought when the mistakes of the past are not only unchallenged, but absentmindedly repeated.

[@BrendanGrahamDempsey]

Metamodern developmental thought is informed by critique of simplistic modern 19th century social evolutionary theory. This is not Tylor, Frazer, or even Durkheim stuff. The imperialistic and eurocentrist bent of that paradigm is roundly rejected. But so too is the relativism of anti-developmental thinkers like Foucault, Kuhn, Feyerabend, etc. There are ways to synthesize the genuine insights of both strains however, as in the work of Piaget/Garcia and, especially, Habermas. The context and criticism you seek is important, but hard to do in an overview video of c. 56 min. I spend much more time unpacking all that though in my written work.

[@mcapello8836]

@@BrendanGrahamDempsey Well, while I appreciate that you say your perspective rejects Tylor and his era, you did also explicitly refer to animism as a child-like anthropomorphism, and you are explicitly saying that that monotheism is somehow a more “complex” or “mature” way of relating to divinity (circa 20 minutes). Given the great deference and care you gave to trying to accurately represent approaches to Christianity in this video, it would have been nice to see a bit more of that same respect extended to non-Christian perspectives. There has been some truly incredible work done in recent decades in this area (the so-called “ontological turn” in anthropology), much of which would definitely question the “progressive” nature of the assimilation/accommodation distinction you’re elaborating upon here (though it’s not entirely clear if you’re using “progressive” in merely a temporal sense, or in a normative or even quasi-teleological sense - the vibe I get is “both”, but would be the first to admit error if that’s not the case). I suppose another way of posing this question would be to ask: where exactly is the “meta” in this modernism when it comes to approaches to divinity that don’t accept the merits of an expansive, theoretical, and hierarchical approach? (Not that I expect an answer in a KZbin comment, of course, or even a video which is primarily about another topic - just putting it out there, and respect you giving it consideration.)

[@williambranch4283]

Progressivism is 19th century zombie theory. Dr Frankenstein.

[@CatrinaDaimonLee]

the true and prudent manner to adopt a metamodern christianity is to embrace the metamodern and leave the christianity behind, imho. lest u be mired in delusion, for metamodern is the ability to sieve for tru gold, and guess what about religion, no gold nor god to be found there

[@williambranch4283]

t is more Buddhist than Hindu or Abrahamic.

[@Christus-totalis]

This meta modern view is protestant in its impulse. Atheism is the logical endpoint of the radical reformation. So meta modern would be one degree less radical? Meta would want to keep Christian Goodness, Truth, Beauty but ditch a literal Christ death and resurrection, and literal interpretive schemes of the Bible? I do believe in a modern reformation of Christianity is needed and will occur. This should be a uniting vision, but it needs a center. That center is Jesus Christ. Jesus said the OT was about him. I also believe in progressive revelation as you suggest, but that progression will always be tethered to Jesus. He is the Image of the invisible God, In Him all things consist. I had stated NT authors believed Jesus as the necessity for reality, let me explain why I agree. The one thing required for my existence is space. A negation of substance. Can multiplicity exist in a singularity ? no. cosmology asks for one miracle, expansive space to allow multiplicity and cooling from infinite density and temperature (Big Bang). If we say God is the singularity (ontological speaking) , that which is all in all, the actual Glory, Light of Light. Then God must be able to self negate without self destruction. Now, only the Trinity allows this reality. As the Son could become this negation of Glory allowing creation to occur, with out the elimination of essence. This creates pure potentiality, from which individual forms can be made.... sounds like quantum physics to me. I know its heady to say Jesus is the self negation of God which allows for creation to exist, but it is philosophically coherent and what the NT affirms. "All thing were made through Him, and without him nothing was made that was made" John 1:3. If we read Genesis Christological as gospel truth we see all sorts of interesting things. So my two bits about the Meta modern reformation. Center everything on Jesus as the philosophical, scientific, social, and metaphysical, Alpha omega , beginning and the end. Is it possible the cosmological miracle occurred on a roman cross?🤔 blessings

[@AuriiiFull]

None of these episodes seem to ever comprehensively engage with colonialism/imperialism, nor with any feminist thought (which seems to be well ahead of the metamodern; Donna Haraway said it better in Situated Knowledges). I want to engage with this, but without addressing colonialism/imperialism, these talks only reproduce white colonial frameworks of "progress"

[@DamienWalter]

The Nordic Secret x 2

[@BrendanGrahamDempsey]

Gifts from Lene Rachel Andersen when she was here in Frebruary. :)

[@aphiggs8657]

20th century Cultural anthropology made a similar argument regarding the development of civilizations from pre-modern to modern (to use your terms) through an almost programatic series of developmental stages. Ultimately, this argument has gone out of fashion in anthropology, criticized initially for it's prescriptive conception of cultural development, but later for what was considered its inherent orientalism. Given that pre-modern religious beliefs of the type you describe existed up until at least the late 20th century, and perhaps still do in parts of the world, it seems to me that your argument exposes itself to a similar line of critique -- namely, if western civilization is further along on the cultural development arc than, say, Trobrian Islanders whose religious beliefs are certainly "pre-Axial", does that mean we are 'older', wiser', or 'more learned' in the Piagetian sense as well? It's far more comfortable to look at modernist Christians from the frame of the metamodernist and decry their out-of-date structures of belief, but the same logic of that critique lays complete and utter waste to animists in yet-pre-modern cultures around the globe! This is, of course, a deeply uncomfortable implication for anyone in the academy today, but I really can't see a way around making it given your argument here.

[@friedricengravy6646]

12 minutes in & STILL explaining what u will discuss.

[@BrendanGrahamDempsey]

Thanks for sticking it out