Great post! You’ve put your finger on the heart of what ails our nation. Politics are downstream of culture. Culture is downstream of our deeply held beliefs- our convictions about how we act/behave in the community. Our convictions are downstream of our life experiences and what we feed our our minds and hearts with. Our politics are rotten because our culture is rotten because our belief systems are rotten. Our beliefs are rotten because of what we feed our hearts and minds with, and the things we choose and ignorantly allow ourselves to experience.
I’ve been coaching leaders in high consequence industries (think surgical suites, cockpits, nuclear power plants, etc) for almost 25 years. The heart of everything I teach is “prescriptively and intentionally create the organizational culture you need to support the change you want to make.” Culture is just not one aspect of the game, it’s the whole game. Change the culture, change the game.
What’s true for business is true for our nation. Our nation, and the precious jewel our Founding Fathers gave us, can be saved, but not without changing our national culture. Regarding the mess we’re in, we can’t vote our way out, we can’t demonstrate our way out, we can’t shoot our way out. We can only “revival” our way out and filling our minds and hearts with the wisdom of God, thus driving our convictions about we behave in our distinctly American community of men and women. There is no other way. For our nation it is change the culture, change our destiny.
I appreciate a lot of this — especially the call for cultural renewal and the opposition to empty consumerism. That said, to truly make the case that "Christianity is uniquely positioned to re-generate and renew itself periodically" you would have to show how other traditions (Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.) aren't positioned in a similar way. And yet this article doesn't even mention these other traditions...
I do briefly. I hold to the opinion that the religious impulse at the heart of those other cultures are directed to false gods, likely demonic beings, who cannot themselves create, they can only draw on the creative energy of the living God, the Creator, who spoke the universe into being, and then they can only do so in a way that distorts and corrupts true being.
Aside from the use of “false gods” and “demonic beings,” you are describing Hinduism, which says that the gods draw on and are avatars of the one God (Brahman).
It’s worth asking how Brahman is distinct from the living God? Or the Tao? Or what the Stoics call Nature? Or Source? They all seem to be pointing the same hidden Mystery
Here is the thing, the claim that all religions are pointing to the same mystery is as much a religious claim as each of the religions themselves make about themselves. There is no way to escape making fundamental religious claims. Even the atheist claim that there is no god or God is itself a fundamental religious claim. In this regard it is largely a matter of faith, an claim made by Christians, that ours is the true faith and that the others are, as I said, false gods.
I read somewhere once that culture is what we give our attention to. A definition that probably leaves out a lot but I think at least points us in a helpful direction.
Your question is 'on the money', only it requires metaphysics rather than theology. The direct answer is "Culture comes from immanence". Immanence is downstream from the logos and antecedent to appearances. If you are interested in knowing more please visit
I hear what you are saying an probably agree with you, other than the term "immanence." I would argue the opposite, that it comes from the transcendent, the supernatural presence of God within the people. The problem with immanence is its use in "immanentism," that is the equating of the actions of God with historical realities. "History," in the Hegelian sense, become the presence of God and thus our engagement in history, that is, politics, becomes the working of God. In practice, what it does is empty the faith of any meaningful mystical or supernatural interaction with God, it materializes the faith.
Thank you for replying Kruptos. Your desire to be erudite, and perhaps skeptical, is getting in the way of learning something new. Immanence is transcendence, i.e., "antecedent to appearances". Immanence is a realm of archetypes. Culture has the most complex archetype, i.e., ontology--teleology. History in Hegelianism is teleology / determinism / the workings of the World-spirit [Holy Spirit in political history] to realise rational transcendent consciousness. Transcendence is achieved thru politics. Politics is the testing ground for ideas and eventually an absolute Idea / Truth emerges. It is the only theatre thru which ideas can evolve into Ideas. To be specific, the issue that realises the crucial logic-changing discovery is political economy. Next to "What is civil society?" political economy is politics' biggest question.
What do you think is going to change the minds of the masses: more mysticism or logic that is non-monist / non-dualistic? Political economy is where the absolute answer meets mysticism and metaphysics / definitive absolute Idealism is sovereign over theology. Frankly you do not know what you are on about. Mysticism and absolute Truth are without meaning; "meaningful mysticism" is an oxymoron. Meaning belongs to relativity and duality. As for "supernatural interaction with God", that can only be receipt of the Holy Spirit. There is nothing supernatural about logos logic recognising the logos. And, as said in John, "No-one comes unto the Father, but by me". Same for metaphysics. Kindly work with me or I'll leave you to whatever you are about.
There has been a great deal of discussion on the right about the cyclical theory of the rise and fall of civilisations. Do religions not also follow this trajectory?
Now civilisations/cultures/religions can become re-energised, history has shown this a number of times. However, looking at the current state of western civilisation and of Christianity, both of which are in steady decline, I find it difficult to see how this might be the case.
Religion is important as a social glue and a firm foundation that keeps a civilisation stable and robust. In that regard, we agree that the secular are wrong.
However is it possible the Christians are misplaced in their belief that it will be Christianity that will form the basis of whatever energes out of the ashes of western civilisation? I think a new religion is more likely, one that doesn't yet exist. I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on the matter?
It is possible, but unlikely. You have to remember that Christianity has its roots in promises made to the Israelite peoples and claims its history back to the dawn of recorded human history itself. The oldest parts of the Old Testament predate Plato, Aristotle and even Homer by half a millennia or more. Christianity is a living tradition claiming worship of the Creator, the God of gods. I don't doubt that in the end of the west it will be transformed somewhat, as it was in the end of Rome and the rise of the West as well as its iterations in the Orthodoxy and the independent African traditions. Christianity will survive for the reasons it has survived this long. It's claims, however imperfectly they are instantiated, are at their core, true.
The Gospel of Jesus Christ is suitable for every culture at every time. It will also transform every culture in which it is embraced. The challenge is that culture is a group dynamic while the Gospel is an individual dynamic. A culture may embrace the forms of Christianity but only individuals may accept Christ. Culture then is temporal and temporary. Christianity is spiritual, with temporal effects, and eternal.
Thus, secular liberty is destructive of Christian culture over time in all cases. How then should we live?
Within the community of believers, led by the Spirit of God. This, by the way, is also the biblical definition of "freedom." "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom."
Turns out that pneumatology winds up doing a lot of heavy lifting in high church traditions (i.e., Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and magisterial Protestantism. Who'd have thunk?
And it's almost as if Pentecostalism, which emerged from distinctly low church Protestantism and thus abandoning most magisterial pneumatology, had to come up with other things for the Holy Spirit to do.
I don't think so. William Seymour, the preacher behind the Azuza Street Revival, was raised Catholic, true. But his most immediate and formal theological influence was the Holiness movement, an offshoot of Methodism. Pestecostalism didn't really get much traction with Catholicism until a few decades later, and even then mostly in Latin America.
An excellent post—it’s so full of information and insights I expect it’ll take readers a while to read, reflect, re-read and then respond. So don’t be surprised and disappointed by an initial paucity of comments to this first class piece.
I’ll offer a brief gloss on just one of your many excellent points: “The Christian faith is more than a set of ideas. It is more than an institution. It is more than a way of life. It is more than a community. The Christian faith is, at its heart, about overcoming the fundamental alienation between God and mankind.”
Given that the relationship between God and humanity is mirrored in the relationship between man and woman, very much including sexual intercourse, our collective turning away from God is mirrored in the turning away of men and women from each other in our time, and the growing confusion about sexuality spreading through our decaying civilization.
Our civilization’s vertical alienation from God has produced a horizontal alienation amongst ourselves between men and women, which is the deepest reason precipitating the collapse from within of our civilization.
Thanks for the kind words. That is an excellent observation about men and women. Alienation is something that Ellul notes in Propaganda in regards to propaganda's role in the technological society. Not just from God, from each other but even from ourselves.
The question you posed in your essay is “where does culture come from”?
In John Paul II’s excellent “The Theology of the Body” he observes “all culture originates in the relationship between man and woman.”
I read those words 20 years ago, and they stopped me in my tracks. He’s right, if you think about it: cooking, clothing, home building and therefore architecture, singing, poetry, story telling (to children), furniture building, language, domesticating animals, social cooperation, all ways of making a living to support a family, the need to acquire weapons, skills and organization to protect the family, and so on.
Once the core loving attraction between men and women in the privacy of their intimate lives is short-circuited, everything in the public and social sphere of a culture goes wrong, too. Those ripples extend to politics, the arts, and eventually engulf everything else.
A man and a woman making love is the archetype of God’s love for humanity.
Yes. Thanks for sharing that.
Great post! You’ve put your finger on the heart of what ails our nation. Politics are downstream of culture. Culture is downstream of our deeply held beliefs- our convictions about how we act/behave in the community. Our convictions are downstream of our life experiences and what we feed our our minds and hearts with. Our politics are rotten because our culture is rotten because our belief systems are rotten. Our beliefs are rotten because of what we feed our hearts and minds with, and the things we choose and ignorantly allow ourselves to experience.
I’ve been coaching leaders in high consequence industries (think surgical suites, cockpits, nuclear power plants, etc) for almost 25 years. The heart of everything I teach is “prescriptively and intentionally create the organizational culture you need to support the change you want to make.” Culture is just not one aspect of the game, it’s the whole game. Change the culture, change the game.
What’s true for business is true for our nation. Our nation, and the precious jewel our Founding Fathers gave us, can be saved, but not without changing our national culture. Regarding the mess we’re in, we can’t vote our way out, we can’t demonstrate our way out, we can’t shoot our way out. We can only “revival” our way out and filling our minds and hearts with the wisdom of God, thus driving our convictions about we behave in our distinctly American community of men and women. There is no other way. For our nation it is change the culture, change our destiny.
I appreciate a lot of this — especially the call for cultural renewal and the opposition to empty consumerism. That said, to truly make the case that "Christianity is uniquely positioned to re-generate and renew itself periodically" you would have to show how other traditions (Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.) aren't positioned in a similar way. And yet this article doesn't even mention these other traditions...
I do briefly. I hold to the opinion that the religious impulse at the heart of those other cultures are directed to false gods, likely demonic beings, who cannot themselves create, they can only draw on the creative energy of the living God, the Creator, who spoke the universe into being, and then they can only do so in a way that distorts and corrupts true being.
Aside from the use of “false gods” and “demonic beings,” you are describing Hinduism, which says that the gods draw on and are avatars of the one God (Brahman).
It’s worth asking how Brahman is distinct from the living God? Or the Tao? Or what the Stoics call Nature? Or Source? They all seem to be pointing the same hidden Mystery
Here is the thing, the claim that all religions are pointing to the same mystery is as much a religious claim as each of the religions themselves make about themselves. There is no way to escape making fundamental religious claims. Even the atheist claim that there is no god or God is itself a fundamental religious claim. In this regard it is largely a matter of faith, an claim made by Christians, that ours is the true faith and that the others are, as I said, false gods.
I read somewhere once that culture is what we give our attention to. A definition that probably leaves out a lot but I think at least points us in a helpful direction.
Your question is 'on the money', only it requires metaphysics rather than theology. The direct answer is "Culture comes from immanence". Immanence is downstream from the logos and antecedent to appearances. If you are interested in knowing more please visit
https://www.academicapress.com/node/520
The title is "The Metaphysics of Culture: Definitive Absolute Philosophy".
A whole metaphysic is required to answer your question, but it does exist.
I hear what you are saying an probably agree with you, other than the term "immanence." I would argue the opposite, that it comes from the transcendent, the supernatural presence of God within the people. The problem with immanence is its use in "immanentism," that is the equating of the actions of God with historical realities. "History," in the Hegelian sense, become the presence of God and thus our engagement in history, that is, politics, becomes the working of God. In practice, what it does is empty the faith of any meaningful mystical or supernatural interaction with God, it materializes the faith.
Thank you for replying Kruptos. Your desire to be erudite, and perhaps skeptical, is getting in the way of learning something new. Immanence is transcendence, i.e., "antecedent to appearances". Immanence is a realm of archetypes. Culture has the most complex archetype, i.e., ontology--teleology. History in Hegelianism is teleology / determinism / the workings of the World-spirit [Holy Spirit in political history] to realise rational transcendent consciousness. Transcendence is achieved thru politics. Politics is the testing ground for ideas and eventually an absolute Idea / Truth emerges. It is the only theatre thru which ideas can evolve into Ideas. To be specific, the issue that realises the crucial logic-changing discovery is political economy. Next to "What is civil society?" political economy is politics' biggest question.
What do you think is going to change the minds of the masses: more mysticism or logic that is non-monist / non-dualistic? Political economy is where the absolute answer meets mysticism and metaphysics / definitive absolute Idealism is sovereign over theology. Frankly you do not know what you are on about. Mysticism and absolute Truth are without meaning; "meaningful mysticism" is an oxymoron. Meaning belongs to relativity and duality. As for "supernatural interaction with God", that can only be receipt of the Holy Spirit. There is nothing supernatural about logos logic recognising the logos. And, as said in John, "No-one comes unto the Father, but by me". Same for metaphysics. Kindly work with me or I'll leave you to whatever you are about.
There has been a great deal of discussion on the right about the cyclical theory of the rise and fall of civilisations. Do religions not also follow this trajectory?
Now civilisations/cultures/religions can become re-energised, history has shown this a number of times. However, looking at the current state of western civilisation and of Christianity, both of which are in steady decline, I find it difficult to see how this might be the case.
Religion is important as a social glue and a firm foundation that keeps a civilisation stable and robust. In that regard, we agree that the secular are wrong.
However is it possible the Christians are misplaced in their belief that it will be Christianity that will form the basis of whatever energes out of the ashes of western civilisation? I think a new religion is more likely, one that doesn't yet exist. I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on the matter?
It is possible, but unlikely. You have to remember that Christianity has its roots in promises made to the Israelite peoples and claims its history back to the dawn of recorded human history itself. The oldest parts of the Old Testament predate Plato, Aristotle and even Homer by half a millennia or more. Christianity is a living tradition claiming worship of the Creator, the God of gods. I don't doubt that in the end of the west it will be transformed somewhat, as it was in the end of Rome and the rise of the West as well as its iterations in the Orthodoxy and the independent African traditions. Christianity will survive for the reasons it has survived this long. It's claims, however imperfectly they are instantiated, are at their core, true.
Thank you for your well-thought out response! I'll think on this some more 😊
The Gospel of Jesus Christ is suitable for every culture at every time. It will also transform every culture in which it is embraced. The challenge is that culture is a group dynamic while the Gospel is an individual dynamic. A culture may embrace the forms of Christianity but only individuals may accept Christ. Culture then is temporal and temporary. Christianity is spiritual, with temporal effects, and eternal.
Thus, secular liberty is destructive of Christian culture over time in all cases. How then should we live?
Within the community of believers, led by the Spirit of God. This, by the way, is also the biblical definition of "freedom." "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom."
Turns out that pneumatology winds up doing a lot of heavy lifting in high church traditions (i.e., Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and magisterial Protestantism. Who'd have thunk?
And it's almost as if Pentecostalism, which emerged from distinctly low church Protestantism and thus abandoning most magisterial pneumatology, had to come up with other things for the Holy Spirit to do.
Actually, if you look into the history, modern Pentecostalism actually had its first roots in Catholicism I believe.
I don't think so. William Seymour, the preacher behind the Azuza Street Revival, was raised Catholic, true. But his most immediate and formal theological influence was the Holiness movement, an offshoot of Methodism. Pestecostalism didn't really get much traction with Catholicism until a few decades later, and even then mostly in Latin America.
An excellent post—it’s so full of information and insights I expect it’ll take readers a while to read, reflect, re-read and then respond. So don’t be surprised and disappointed by an initial paucity of comments to this first class piece.
I’ll offer a brief gloss on just one of your many excellent points: “The Christian faith is more than a set of ideas. It is more than an institution. It is more than a way of life. It is more than a community. The Christian faith is, at its heart, about overcoming the fundamental alienation between God and mankind.”
Given that the relationship between God and humanity is mirrored in the relationship between man and woman, very much including sexual intercourse, our collective turning away from God is mirrored in the turning away of men and women from each other in our time, and the growing confusion about sexuality spreading through our decaying civilization.
Our civilization’s vertical alienation from God has produced a horizontal alienation amongst ourselves between men and women, which is the deepest reason precipitating the collapse from within of our civilization.
Thanks for the kind words. That is an excellent observation about men and women. Alienation is something that Ellul notes in Propaganda in regards to propaganda's role in the technological society. Not just from God, from each other but even from ourselves.
The question you posed in your essay is “where does culture come from”?
In John Paul II’s excellent “The Theology of the Body” he observes “all culture originates in the relationship between man and woman.”
I read those words 20 years ago, and they stopped me in my tracks. He’s right, if you think about it: cooking, clothing, home building and therefore architecture, singing, poetry, story telling (to children), furniture building, language, domesticating animals, social cooperation, all ways of making a living to support a family, the need to acquire weapons, skills and organization to protect the family, and so on.
Once the core loving attraction between men and women in the privacy of their intimate lives is short-circuited, everything in the public and social sphere of a culture goes wrong, too. Those ripples extend to politics, the arts, and eventually engulf everything else.
A man and a woman making love is the archetype of God’s love for humanity.
There is something to this.