I swear, you might be the only Catholic in the entire country who is (1) charismatic enough to be worth listening to, (2) understands the fundamental importance of vibes, and (3) is capable of teaching how to use vibes in a systematic way to create belonging.
Thanks for this article Marcellino! Enjoyed reading your thoughts on the struggles of Christianity in the modern world.
I was particularly struck by your claim that Christianity must be exclusive or risk becoming irrelevant. I always find it quite amusing that it is people who don’t really have any connection to the Church, who blame the Church’s problems on being overly exclusive (exclusive claims on truth, exclusive towards homosexuals, exclusively ordaining men, etc.). In other words, they want the Church not to offend them, but would never show up on Sunday regardless.
I think this raises a real question though - is there a way that an intolerant organisation (one that makes exclusive truth claims) can form a civilisation? (viz., the Mechan quote: "Involuntary organizations ought to be tolerant, but voluntary organizations, so far as the fundamental purpose of their existence is concerned, must be intolerant or else cease to exist.") That is to say, can we in fact build up a Christian culture, or does it have to remain a voluntary organisation? I’m inclined prima facie to agree with Paul Kingsnorth et al. that Christian civilisation is oxymoronic. The Church does best when it’s a hated minority (blessed are you, when they revile you for my name’s sake).
But, at a certain point, the Church stopped being a voluntary organisation and started including essentially everyone (the occasional atheist intellectual or Jewish suburb being the exceptions that prove the norm). Somehow this succeeded for about a thousand years (if we ignore the splits between Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Protestantism - and those were usually societal, rather than individual). Christendom only really collapsed in the last half of the 20th century.
If Christendom was an involuntary organisation, how did it manage to have such a long and successful run?
Love this question. Would love an answer from Marcellino on this, but in my mind, exclusive orgs within Christendom were the cause or renewal and revival. These used to be holy orders where these tribal dynamics survived and thrived, and you could likely explain the growth and survival of Christendom almost completely from that alone. The infighting between Charasmatic, Byzantine, and Latin Mass sects shows that tribal identities inside the faith all assist in each others growth by forcing new layers of exclusivity at a higher resolution then just Christianity.
This isn’t even accounting for the way it grafted into ethnic identities, which to some extent were tribal before the 20th century.
Thanks for this article. I did not know the Superbowl had happened until the actual day it happened -- that is what comes of not owning a TV. The "He Gets Us" ad appears to be made of AI-generated images. Did you notice it? Lazy, unoriginal, and cheap.
Unfortunately, the "He Saves Us" ad wasn't much better, as all it did was boast about having recruited some B list celebrities, addicts, and gay people. I'm certainly happy for them and I sincerely hope they find a relationship with the Divine through Christianity despite my own journey to connection via polytheism. Nevertheless, why do I highly doubt they had to prove themselves before being accepted into the Christian ranks? Christianity is not in a good position at the moment; bragging about recent converts smacks of desperation and desperation is always an effective repellent. I was just as atheist as Josh Timonen once and though he gets more publicity for becoming a believer in God than I ever will, I believe my own solitary path to be as valid as his. This is what Christianity is up against in the Age of Aquarius -- there is no one true way. It's not just that God and the gods are coming back. It's that we've finally decided to stop being deaf, dumb, and blind in the face of what they have to say.
I agree with much of this analysis, so it is unfortunate you put this sentence at the beginning:
"Higher birthrates reflect who truly lives their faith, ensuring its sustainability over generations."
The monastic life was one of the pillars of traditional Christianity forever and many of the most influential early Christians eschewed marriage and procreation. Christianity did not sweep over the Roman Empire and the near East because they were out reproducing the pagans, at least not in the first 300 years. Even today, converts tend to better represent the tribal vigor you're talking about than cradles.
I am talking about our time more than anything. The spirit of our age is anti family formation.
But there is also ample research that shows that birth rates are a primary driver of a religions growth over time. I'll see what I can dig out to send that will show you this.
Taylor Swift part was spot on. Of course Beyoncé is woke she’s a Black Queen. That’s whatever. Taylor Swift (and Caitlin Clark, Dixie Chicks, even someone like Springsteen) are actual traitors and sell outs and wear skin suits and try and create more sell outs which is highly offensive. I disagree about the second half though. Surely the tribe part matters but Christianity is peak rationality so it shouldn’t be pitted against it. I think rationality is a huge problem for men right now because men are the leaders of Christianity and without reason they simply won’t have courage to fight the Leviathan
I swear, you might be the only Catholic in the entire country who is (1) charismatic enough to be worth listening to, (2) understands the fundamental importance of vibes, and (3) is capable of teaching how to use vibes in a systematic way to create belonging.
Thank you. That means a lot.
This endorsement made me instantly subscribe. Can’t wait to read more @Marcellino D'Ambrosio
Thanks for this article Marcellino! Enjoyed reading your thoughts on the struggles of Christianity in the modern world.
I was particularly struck by your claim that Christianity must be exclusive or risk becoming irrelevant. I always find it quite amusing that it is people who don’t really have any connection to the Church, who blame the Church’s problems on being overly exclusive (exclusive claims on truth, exclusive towards homosexuals, exclusively ordaining men, etc.). In other words, they want the Church not to offend them, but would never show up on Sunday regardless.
I think this raises a real question though - is there a way that an intolerant organisation (one that makes exclusive truth claims) can form a civilisation? (viz., the Mechan quote: "Involuntary organizations ought to be tolerant, but voluntary organizations, so far as the fundamental purpose of their existence is concerned, must be intolerant or else cease to exist.") That is to say, can we in fact build up a Christian culture, or does it have to remain a voluntary organisation? I’m inclined prima facie to agree with Paul Kingsnorth et al. that Christian civilisation is oxymoronic. The Church does best when it’s a hated minority (blessed are you, when they revile you for my name’s sake).
But, at a certain point, the Church stopped being a voluntary organisation and started including essentially everyone (the occasional atheist intellectual or Jewish suburb being the exceptions that prove the norm). Somehow this succeeded for about a thousand years (if we ignore the splits between Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Protestantism - and those were usually societal, rather than individual). Christendom only really collapsed in the last half of the 20th century.
If Christendom was an involuntary organisation, how did it manage to have such a long and successful run?
Love this question. Would love an answer from Marcellino on this, but in my mind, exclusive orgs within Christendom were the cause or renewal and revival. These used to be holy orders where these tribal dynamics survived and thrived, and you could likely explain the growth and survival of Christendom almost completely from that alone. The infighting between Charasmatic, Byzantine, and Latin Mass sects shows that tribal identities inside the faith all assist in each others growth by forcing new layers of exclusivity at a higher resolution then just Christianity.
This isn’t even accounting for the way it grafted into ethnic identities, which to some extent were tribal before the 20th century.
Spot on about identity, tribalism, and faith etc.
Yes he gets us the problem is we don't get him.
This is incredible. Well done brother and looking forward to part 3.
Thanks man
Truly outstanding analysis.
Your tribal initiation graphic bears some resemblance to John Ransom’s ideas on Code.
Link?
I’ve got the book in my office at work. I’ll send it in a few days.
Thanks for this article. I did not know the Superbowl had happened until the actual day it happened -- that is what comes of not owning a TV. The "He Gets Us" ad appears to be made of AI-generated images. Did you notice it? Lazy, unoriginal, and cheap.
Unfortunately, the "He Saves Us" ad wasn't much better, as all it did was boast about having recruited some B list celebrities, addicts, and gay people. I'm certainly happy for them and I sincerely hope they find a relationship with the Divine through Christianity despite my own journey to connection via polytheism. Nevertheless, why do I highly doubt they had to prove themselves before being accepted into the Christian ranks? Christianity is not in a good position at the moment; bragging about recent converts smacks of desperation and desperation is always an effective repellent. I was just as atheist as Josh Timonen once and though he gets more publicity for becoming a believer in God than I ever will, I believe my own solitary path to be as valid as his. This is what Christianity is up against in the Age of Aquarius -- there is no one true way. It's not just that God and the gods are coming back. It's that we've finally decided to stop being deaf, dumb, and blind in the face of what they have to say.
I agree with much of this analysis, so it is unfortunate you put this sentence at the beginning:
"Higher birthrates reflect who truly lives their faith, ensuring its sustainability over generations."
The monastic life was one of the pillars of traditional Christianity forever and many of the most influential early Christians eschewed marriage and procreation. Christianity did not sweep over the Roman Empire and the near East because they were out reproducing the pagans, at least not in the first 300 years. Even today, converts tend to better represent the tribal vigor you're talking about than cradles.
I am talking about our time more than anything. The spirit of our age is anti family formation.
But there is also ample research that shows that birth rates are a primary driver of a religions growth over time. I'll see what I can dig out to send that will show you this.
Taylor Swift part was spot on. Of course Beyoncé is woke she’s a Black Queen. That’s whatever. Taylor Swift (and Caitlin Clark, Dixie Chicks, even someone like Springsteen) are actual traitors and sell outs and wear skin suits and try and create more sell outs which is highly offensive. I disagree about the second half though. Surely the tribe part matters but Christianity is peak rationality so it shouldn’t be pitted against it. I think rationality is a huge problem for men right now because men are the leaders of Christianity and without reason they simply won’t have courage to fight the Leviathan
I don't mean that rationality isn't important, or that experience and charity aren't important.
All of them are important.
But the most important part is life on life discipleship.
I've been involved in church work for a decade and I've never seen initiatives aimed at rationality even be marginally effective.
The truth is that the average person is simply not high IQ enough to do much intellectual faith formation.
Catholicism lasted through hundreds of years of illiteracy for this reason. It prioritized art, beauty, and tribal identity over rationality.