Time stamp guy, thank you - I can tell you are a person with deep moral convictions, fortitude, strength, honor and duty in this virtuous service to your fellow man. You saved me twenty minutes so its worth 20 seconds of my time to thank you. 😅
I really loved this lecture. It's opened a door for me into Christianity which I have always before seen as too doctrinal, too structured, too much like the machine.
Jordan Peterson has five series where he talks about judeochristian values as the basis of western civilization material success, never once did he mentions the gospels.
He’s highlighted a lot of judeo aspect of it. I agree he has often failed to highlight more of the new, part of that is because Christians have done a bad job of showing the continuity between NT and OT
When restoring and regathering Israel you don’t need to feel threatened if it doesn’t start with your own tradition first. There’s plenty of evidence of God’s prophets originating outside the mainstream tradition.
I don’t know what he means by “embrace”. “Accept” I can interpret as acknowledge that it exists, but I’m not sure about “embrace”. Embrace, to me means to participate, be a part of. That, I cannot.
This makes be want to have him back on Grail Country because this is precisely the alarm I keep sounding and gets to the core of my Christian Anarchism.
Much to chew on with this excellent talk. I could listen to Mr. Kingsnorth speak for ages, and this talk was no exception. I hesitate to offer any criticism, not only because I am about as baby of a Christian as they come, but also because I feel a sort of compulsive desire to agree as a knee-jerk to such an eloquently presented, thought provoking, and challenging presentation. I think there are a couple of missing ingredients to the case that adjust the lighting a bit, which I've been digesting since I first watched this talk. First, on the subject of the (former(?)) atheists arriving at Christianity, or its culture/trappings/faith-stripped practices and other peripheries, at least, as a balm for the crises of modernity, I think that Kingsnorth has it inside-out, and perhaps wants too much of brand-new, or even not-yet, Christians. Yes, they are wading in the shallower peripheries, but what does any newcomer in any context arrive at first but the periphery, going deeper as they approach the center? I tend to extend a little grace; as far as Peterson goes, he's unfailingly careful not to speak "as a Christian," which gives him credit with me - he seems to be feeling his way in from the periphery - I pray that he does ultimately find the center, and I'm thankful that his imperfection is guiding as many into the depths as it seems to be (myself included). My opinion would be very different if Peterson were speaking as a Christian, but he unequivocally, and very carefully, isn't. It's obviously important to recognize that periphery for what it is, but how else does anyone get to the center of a thing but through the peripheries first? Especially such a big thing as the Gospel message and its implications for souls and civilizations, and to a person so steeped in the modern impossibility of its literality? Kingsnorth's critique of the Christian-dabbling or newly-believing "dissident right" types absolutely has a nugget of truth and fairness in it in comparison to thinkers who have discovered and embraced the center in faith, but ultimately seems overweighted in service of his argument. Secondly, I continue to contemplate the "civilization" element of Mr. Kingsnorth's critique. There's a smattering of the Rousseauian in his perspective that I'm grappling with, and I suspect the theme that might reconcile it all is the Fall. Equating "civilization" with "cities" seems a stretch even at the level of the dictionary. Even a city can be more or less civilized (I'd argue that that depends deeply on the overlap between that city's culture and Christianity, if not in True belief in the Gospel at least in the value of its behavioral norms and base philosophical assumptions). The characterization of the pre-Fall Edenic world is that of "garden," which implies a "civilizing" sort of influence (God's direct presence, in the case of Eden?) beyond the state of nature. I would argue that we are a "civilization" to the extent that we properly exercise ourselves as Imago Dei, and that we are "wilderness" insofar as we fail to do so, giving in and over to our Fallen brokenness or even deeper to purposeful Evil. The wall can enclose a paradisal garden that is in ultimate and personal union with God and His purpose, or a dystopian nightmare hellscape a la "Escape from New York." The periphery alone isn't enough to get us to Christendom, and Kingsnorth's critique is well taken here by me, I think, that the price for neglecting the center for the periphery is "awe"ful. But as much as the pastoral hermit Christianity in rejection (or, at least, skepticism) of civilization, the Enemy dwells and tempts as strongly in the wilderness as inside the walls. The battle is, and has always been, within human hearts, and the state of those hearts is what makes the state world, no matter how dense the population. Retreating from civilization to the wilderness is not a guarantee to find God... indeed, in my (very novice) reading of the Bible, it seems like the Devil tempts there all the more strongly. I've over-rambled here quite a lot there, especially considering the topic, but do want to reiterate my thanks to Mr. Kingsnorth for an excellent talk; it's lived rent-free in my head for a couple of days already, and likely will for longer. Provoking and disquieting in exactly the right measures. I'll be listening again, and look forward to the inevitable commentaries and responses from other of my favorite speakers for more insights on these ideas.
I am pretty much aligned with him. We preach Christ and Make Disciples with fear and trembling, letting the world know we are Christ's disciples by how we love one another. We are not here to preserve nations, not states or races, we are here to witness the glory of God through our suffering and our flourishing.
I love Paul, and this was an excellent speech. However, I think the notion that Christians have a fundamental dichotomy: fighting to save the Western Civilization or repenting to be not just false, but dangerously false. Martin Luther King Jr. fought for civil rights, and he did it in a Christian way. It seems to me that this is what the times call for. Yes, pride and anger are dangers. But, so is passivity. We are not called to be passive. I also believe the US involvement in WWII was also justified. This either/or kind of thinking is too limiting. We are not all called to be monks or hermits, and we do indeed need to defend when the times call for it.
MLK eventually realized that capital, war and oppression are all one thing. That’s why they had to eliminate him, because he would lead millions to secede from the machine anticulture and live as free Christians. The machine maintains a religion that blesses theft and murder and prevents Christianity from ever appearing. Christian Nationalism is its new face.
Civil rights is often explained as a black historical achievement, but the reality is it only happened because it was good for Euro-American civilization. It’s best explained through a process called “interest convergence”. The leaders of Euro-American civilization were claiming moral superiority over Russia’s communist civilization, but everywhere they went people would respond, “morally superior? You lynch Negroes.” At the time America was an apartheid state, and Blacks were claiming the US was engaged in genocide, protesting against American civilization, and attempting to go to war against the empire. Since the civil rights movement was the most peaceful, asked for the least, and had a moral, Christian ethos to it, the leaders of Euro-American civilization decided to pretend to come to Jesus. (Interests converged.) They rewrote the laws (it was just words on paper) and then proceeded to spend the next several decades rounding up Blacks into prisons in record numbers to prevent another uprising. King’s mission was to bring salvation to his people. Fighting evil got him killed and in the aftermath millions of Blacks were incarcerated. Many Black leaders were killed, and to this day Black people live under the tyranny of Euro-American Civilization.
@@jacobjames5536 Let's start with the initial claim that Euro American civilization was attempting to spread "morality" and were getting mocked by Communist countries for our race relations--I find this utterly baffling. You mean Russia? Are they known for their progressive views on race relations? What in hell's name are you talking about? "Everywhere they went". Where is everywhere, who was traveling to everywhere, and where are all these supposed places that had enlightened views on race relations in the early-mid 20th century?
@@radphilospherYes. America’s claim that they had the only moral economic system and that other systems, specifically communism, were immoral was a big part of US Cold War propaganda and was easily refuted by the reality of the country’s segregation laws, both within the country and in abroad, such as in Europe, Latin America, and Africa.
Yes but the archbishop of England was denounced as a schismatic in 1052 by the Roman papacy. William invaded England with the Pope's blessing to bring the nation into the Roman Catholic church
@@Eilfylijokul They were already in the church, and had been for centuries. What Rome wanted was more centralisation, and more open papacy, and William was happy to oblige.
Therefore, take up the full armor of God, so that you will be able to resist in the evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm. (Ephesians 6:13)
These are well-articulated thoughts about the unworldliness/otherworldiness of the true Christian faith, but something seems missing her - something about "salt" and "light". Consider this account of Captain John Whidden wherein he witnesses an Indian sacrificial festival in 1856, found in his memoir published in 1908: "We passed up the Bay of Bengal on the last end of the southwest monsoon, and experienced light winds and generally pleasant weather. We made the pilot brig, and taking a pilot on board, an old acquaintance of Captain Meacom, entered the Hoogly, proceeding up the river. A Hindoo religious festival was being held at Saugor Island, and the river was covered with boats decorated with flowers containing gaily dressed natives, male and female, all bound for the island to take part in the rites. These consisted, in part, of offering their female children to the immense crocodiles that swarmed in the waters of the Hoogly and especially around Saugor at this time. The cries and shrieks of the victims were drowned in the music and shouting of the multitude. This custom of sacrificing female children has since been done away with by the government." That is, the British colonial ("Christian") gov't. Does not the Christianization of human society, through the influence of Christians in it, rightly result in the "civilization" of it? Is it not a means by which God imparts His grace to mankind and increases His "reknown" in the world? (Isaiah 55) it seems to me that there is something called "Human flourising" that the Word testifies to - "righteousness exalts a nation"...etc.. - and that this flourishing is an intended result of Christ's work. Also, I read Eastman's biography years ago, and I think PK is not completely doing justice the author's position, as he clearly clearly regarded the faith and society that he adopted to be superior to the one he had been born into. He was a remarkable man and a true Christian. PK seems like a wonderful brother in Christ, and I appreciate his thought-provoking insights. May the Lord help us all increase in the knowledge of God and our Lord Jesus Christ, and especially in our understanding of our calling to sanctify ourselves and thus impact our world for His glory.
@@michaelgrey1296 The Message of the Crucifixion For learning purposes, let us consider the crucifixion again. I did not dwell on it before because of the fearful connotations you may associate with it. ³The only emphasis laid upon it so far has been that it was not a form of punishment. ⁴Nothing, however, can be explained in negative terms only. ⁵There is a positive interpretation of the crucifixion that is wholly devoid of fear, and therefore wholly benign in what it teaches, if it is properly understood. 2. The crucifixion is nothing more than an extreme example. ²Its value, like the value of any teaching device, lies solely in the kind of learning it facilitates. ³It can be, and has been, misunderstood. ⁴This is only because the fearful are apt to perceive fearfully. ⁵I have already told you that you can always call on me to share my decision, and thus make it stronger. ⁶I have also told you that the crucifixion was the last useless journey the Sonship need take, and that it represents release from fear to anyone who understands it. ⁷While I emphasized only the resurrection before, the purpose of the crucifixion and how it actually led to the resurrection was not clarified then. ⁸Nevertheless, it has a definite contribution to make to your own life, and if you will consider it without fear, it will help you understand your own role as a teacher. 3. You have probably reacted for years as if you were being crucified. ²This is a marked tendency of the separated, who always refuse to consider what they have done to themselves. ³Projection means anger, anger fosters assault, and assault promotes fear. ⁴The real meaning of the crucifixion lies in the _apparent_ intensity of the assault of some of the Sons of God upon another. ⁵This, of course, is impossible, and must be fully understood _as_ impossible. ⁶Otherwise, I cannot serve as a model for learning. 4. Assault can ultimately be made only on the body. ²There is little doubt that one body can assault another, and can even destroy it. ³Yet if destruction itself is impossible, anything that is destructible cannot be real. ⁴Its destruction, therefore, does not justify anger. ⁵To the extent to which you believe that it does, you are accepting false premises and teaching them to others. ⁶The message the crucifixion was intended to teach was that it is not necessary to perceive any form of assault in persecution, because you cannot _be_ persecuted. ⁷If you respond with anger, you must be equating yourself with the destructible, and are therefore regarding yourself insanely. 5. I have made it perfectly clear that I am like you and you are like me, but our fundamental equality can be demonstrated only through joint decision. ²You are free to perceive yourself as persecuted if you choose. ³When you do choose to react that way, however, you might remember that I was persecuted as the world judges, and did not share this evaluation for myself. ⁴And because I did not share it, I did not strengthen it. ⁵I therefore offered a different interpretation of attack, and one which I want to share with you. ⁶If you will believe it, you will help me teach it. 6. As I have said before, “As you teach so shall you learn.” ²If you react as if you are persecuted, you are teaching persecution. ³This is not a lesson a Son of God should want to teach if he is to realize his own salvation. ⁴Rather, teach your own perfect immunity, which is the truth in you, and realize that it cannot _be_ assailed. ⁵Do not try to protect it yourself, or you are believing that it is assailable. ⁶You are not asked to be crucified, which was part of my own teaching contribution. ⁷You are merely asked to follow my example in the face of much less extreme temptations to misperceive, and not to accept them as false justifications for anger. ⁸There can be no justification for the unjustifiable. ⁹Do not believe there is, and do not teach that there is. ¹⁰Remember always that what you believe you will teach. ¹¹Believe with me, and we will become equal as teachers. I am sorry when my brothers do not share my decision to hear only one Voice, because it weakens them as teachers and as learners. Yet I know they cannot really betray themselves or me, and that it is still on them that I must build my church. There is no choice in this, because only you can be the foundation of God's church. A church is where an altar is, and the presence of the altar is what makes the church holy. A church that does not inspire love has a hidden altar that is not serving the purpose for which God intended it. I must found His church on you, because those who accept me as a model are literally my disciples. Disciples are followers, and if the model they follow has chosen to save them pain in all respects, they are unwise not to follow him. I elected, for your sake and mine, to demonstrate that the most outrageous assault, as judged by the ego, does not matter. As the world judges these things, but not as God knows them, I was betrayed, abandoned, beaten, torn, and finally killed. It was clear that this was only because of the projection of others onto me, since I had not harmed anyone and had healed many. We are still equal as learners, although we do not need to have equal experiences. The Holy Spirit is glad when you can learn from mine, and be reawakened by them. That is their only purpose, and that is the only way in which I can be perceived as the way, the truth and the life. When you hear only one Voice you are never called on to sacrifice. On the contrary, by being able to hear the Holy Spirit in others you can learn from their experiences, and can gain from them without experiencing them directly yourself. That is because the Holy Spirit is one, and anyone who listens is inevitably led to demonstrate His way for all. You are not persecuted, nor was I. You are not asked to repeat my experiences because the Holy Spirit, Whom we share, makes this unnecessary. To use my experiences constructively, however, you must still follow my example in how to perceive them. My brothers and yours are constantly engaged in justifying the unjustifiable. My one lesson, which I must teach as I learned it, is that no perception that is out of accord with the judgment of the Holy Spirit can be justified. I undertook to show this was true in an extreme case, merely because it would serve as a good teaching aid to those whose temptation to give in to anger and assault would not be so extreme. I will with God that none of His Sons should suffer. The crucifixion cannot be shared because it is the symbol of projection, but the resurrection is the symbol of sharing because the reawakening of every Son of God is necessary to enable the Sonship to know its wholeness. Only this is knowledge. The message of the crucifixion is perfectly clear: _"Teach only love, for that is what you are."_ If you interpret the crucifixion in any other way, you are using it as a weapon for assault rather than as the call for peace for which it was intended. The Apostles often misunderstood it, and for the same reason that anyone misunderstands it. Their own imperfect love made them vulnerable to projection, and out of their own fear they spoke of the "wrath of God" as His retaliatory weapon. Nor could they speak of the crucifixion entirely without anger, because their sense of guilt had made them angry. These are some of the examples of upside-down thinking in the New Testament, although its gospel is really only the message of love. If the Apostles had not felt guilty, they never could have quoted me as saying, "I come not to bring peace but a sword." This is clearly the opposite of everything I taught. Nor could they have described my reactions to Judas as they did, if they had really understood me. I could not have said, "Betrayest thou the Son of Man with a kiss?" unless I believed in betrayal. The whole message of the crucifixion was simply that I did not. The "punishment" I was said to have called forth upon Judas was a similar mistake. Judas was my brother and a Son of God, as much a part of the Sonship as myself. Was it likely that I would condemn him when I was ready to demonstrate that condemnation is impossible? A Course In Miracles (1975) Author: _Jesus Christ_
Paul is advocating for a valid and true strand of ancient Christianity. This is the Christianity of the desert fathers that build the Christian civilization.
Good lecture, but I believe in Kingsnorth's earnest desire to do what Jesus did, he may need to hold other passages in tension. Sure, some are called to give up everything, but Jesus called His followers to different types of commitment. Luke 9:57-62 is a good example. Three people, but three different impediments to following Jesus. No one size fits all. So, I love the spirit of Kingsnorth's exhortation but it does not juggle other truths in the Bible that are crucial to remember.
Perhaps, but the core truths presented here will survive when all others have faded. These are central to Jesus. Without them, Jesus becomes little more than a good moral philosopher.
No. There are only three guises to the same impediment: worldliness on our part. Christ was clear to all: He is the Way, the Truth and the Life, and we are to pick up our cross and follow Him. That we are willing to do this to some degree or another is on us, not on any 'levels of commitment' inherent in His calling us.
A powerfully challenging and incredibly thought-provoking lecture. That's for sure. Thanks First Things and Dr. Kingsnorth. And yet I, like one of the questioners, wonder about aspects of Kingsnorth's literal interpretations. Can you really have hospitals and universities, for example, apart from a "civilizational" component? Would not every culture, by definition, be antithetical to the Word according to Kingsnorth? I respect his point that we are to reject the tempting vision of modern-day crusaders who will rise up and restore our once-glorious Christian civilization. But could the next culture that emerges, a culture closer to the City of God than our own, not make use of the embers of Western culture? I'd really like to hear Jordan Peterson and Patrick Deneen (for different reasons) respond to this lecture!
Right; Kingsnorth seems to jump from the fact that universities and hospitals can become corrupted institutions within corrupt civilizations to the claim that universities and hospitals are not existentially dependent on a civilized context. Not a plausible leap of logic.
“Christianity is impractical, it’s intolerable, and it’s awful in the original sense of that word. It’s terrifying and it’s designed to kill you.” Kingsnorth Amen.
The first half hour was crowd noises; then, when we finally get to the introduction, the sound was so low, I gave up after fifteen minutes. Come on, First Things, the first thing you ought to do is upload this video with proper editing and decent sound.
A very interesting speech as ever. I am not a Christian, but, perhaps for the wrong reasons, in Mr Kingsnorth’s view, I am intensely curious about the church and its role in the history of my home (England). I’m at a stage in my life when, along with all my other beliefs (unthinking leftism, feminism…) I am re-evaluating EVERYTHING. I’d like to make a few comments from that perspective. I had the privilege of being at the Unherd Club listening to Ayaan Hirsi Ali speak a few days after her bombshell article was published. I would suggest that there is more to her conversion than was possible to write in that piece, which would have been severely limited by word count. The ‘culture war’ aspect was perhaps the dominant theme, and it served brilliantly as clickbait. However, having listened to her speak I would be inclined to wait for her book and a more comprehensive account before passing judgement. She’s taken the plunge (and caused controversy) by publicly asserting her conversion. Maybe it’s premature. She admitted she has much learning to do, but she spoke not only of the cultural / historic aspects and the contrast with her former faith, but also of the spiritual succour she had found, that her years of non-belief had failed to provide, leading her to depression and dependence on alcohol. In short, I suspect there is much more to her public conversion than sticking it to the Islamists / woke. As to Jordan Peterson, as far as I know, he makes no claim to be a Christian. I’ve been watching his Gospel series, where he makes repeated reference to God and Christ. But he defers to the Christians in the room as appropriate - Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant are all represented. I sense a touch of pride in this account. Has Mr Kingsnorth forgotten what it’s like NOT to believe? It can’t be so long ago, can it? I don’t think JBP is trying to convert anyone. He is a psychologist and cultural commentator, and his mission has been, in my view, to alert people to the dangerous hubris and spiritual emptiness of atheism and atheistic ideologies and the murderous results of same. I would say he has done a fantastic job. To me, as a former new atheist and National Secular Society member, who recoiled at the idea of Christianity, to my shame principally for the reason that it was so deeply uncool, he has brought these ancient stories to life, and made me realise that there is deep wisdom, indeed truth within them. He has not ‘brought me to Christ‘, nor is that his aim or desire. But he, and C S Lewis and Francis Spufford and Glen Scrivener and others, have brought me to the water’s edge, as another commenter put it. I’m not entirely sure, where to go next. This is likely to be a long-drawn-out process, if only because, I recognise that being a true Christian would cost so much - perhaps more than I am willing to give. I know this, despite getting most of my religious education from the likes of the good professor. So perhaps he’d doing something right after all.
I am so glad I found this. I have had this nagging feeling for some years now that as a follower of Jesus & what he told us to do, I am just interpreting it to my own convenience. What am I going to do about ? I certainly will not take up my cross & use it as a sword. My desire is to do what’s right but I live as a man of God in a culture al soup that speaks every minute of everyday that we should do whatever is our will. Would greatly appreciate your thoughts?
This brings to mind the age old question: If weak men are created by good times and themselves create hard times, how do we prevent the good times from creating weak men? Doing so would theoretically prevent the existence of hard times. The best explanation I know of is that the man living in the good times must cultivate virtue forcibly, like a sedentary man must go to a gym to be fit. A man in the hard times is forced by his environs to cultivate virtue to survive, there's no wiggle room to be lazy in. A man in the good times meanwhile has to force himself.
Let God take care of the civilizational cycles. ❤ We seem to have much more local work to be done. 🙃 At least that is how I understood Jesus's teachings. 🤷❤️
That happens when you're not on a correct path, roughly after 1000 year AD the whole western world is going from one extreme to another, from one extreme ideology to another, guess why? Because it's all on a "naturalistic" path - it's always a reaction to a reaction to a reaction and so it goes
'it's something I struggle with'...yes, perhaps that's the point, it's not a living faith if you don't? I grew up in a version of Christianity, Quakerism, that effectively 'institutionalised the struggle', and made 'meeting for worship' the time when any of the congregation could get up and express what their conscience and 'communion with the spirit' had brought forth within them, guided by the gospels and the basic values Quakers distilled from them. Sometimes it took a long time to change people's minds. I was astonished to discover that the Quakers who I thought had championed the abolition of slavery from day one, had in fact taken years to be converted to that belief by a maverick they had more or less banished from their midst, but in the end saw the wisdom of. That process never ends as far as I can see.
I mean, I respect Paul, and Jordan peterson. I don't always agree with everything Jordan Peterson say, and Jordan is Neither a confessing Christian nor a clergyman. But i think Paul made a Big Caricature of Jordans thoughts here, as somebody who has listened closely to Jordan. One would think paul was talking about Andrew tate, if they've never heard Jordan.
It is a bit of a strawman, as Jordan Peterson says "Clean your room before you criticize the world". To Peterson, there is no returning to Christian civilization without individual transformation whereas Paul considers the two mutually exclusive. These are different Christianities, Paul's is of monks and hermits whereas JBP's is of common people which Paul either rejects or considers a lost cause.
Kingsnorth has very valid points about Peterson. Tbh Peterson reminds me of the protestants in Scotland who are very involved in their church, in fact taking high positions for themselves whilst also attending their weekly meeting at the Masonic Lodge. These people defend Protestant Christianity as if it were a culture.
Great talk, terrifying. I found the Peterson critique unnecessarily harsh though. I think Peterson is doing a great service pointing the way for the truly lost - those that wouldn't be able to hear, let alone comprehend, the likes of Kingsnorth, Pageau, or Bishop Barron. One must begin somewhere on Jacob's Ladder, and for most of us it will be at the bottom.
Not sure it was ‘unnecessarily’ harsh. Perhaps a bit but as a Peterson admirer I understand why Kingsnorth feels the need to put the Jesus horse back before the psych lingo jungian archetype cart. It’s easy to get lost in what some term but psychobabel when in the end what is MOST important is not the utility of biblical stories to inspire righteous behaviors but rather relationship with God the Father, Son & Holy Spirit.
@@charlestrella711 Certainly and granted. I nevertheless see Peterson as a much-needed "gateway" for those so immersed in our post-Enlightenment culture that they need an intellectual or materialist bridge before they can even begin to appreciate what awaits them on the other side. I was - sometimes still am - one of those people, and I suspect we are many. Hence my gratitude to the good doctor, whatever his ultimate shortcomings from a truly Christian perspective.
@@aodh_séamus Ah. I see your point. If JP is providing a bridge for many who feel SO alienated from and by Christians that any hint of ‘Christian’ eschatology can actually trigger the close the door reaction, I suppose his standing apart from or at least not verbalizing what could be seen as proselytizing is a good thing. I think for many of we committed Christians it can start to feel like it’s missing the main point. Especially for someone new to the faith like Kingsnorth it seems like never getting to the main point. Thanks!
I think Paul made a Caricature of petersons Thoughts. And I don't always agree with everything petersons say, but that was a bad simplification of his thoughts. I remember peterson really explaining the tower of babel as a model for why civilizations fall, and he did mention and raised some of the concerns Paul is raising here. I think Paul wasn't charitable to Jordan, and I doubt he has really invested attention into Jordans work. He almost painted Jordan like an andrew tate figure. Though on the other hand, I don't consider Jordan a Christian or a Clergyman, so I am weary about most of the things he says.
I think you are right in some ways, he has inmense value for some people, but you haven't seen the blind spots of Jordan get, he's fight is very political, he's very polarized. I'm an ex-fan, seen hundreds of hours of his material, it was not until I got out of the club that I realized his blind spots
A clarion clear call, and the key to it all is metanoia - the inner turning in each one of us, that will make the outer right, and bring the kingdom down to earth.
A grounding lecture by Mr Kingsnorth. I think that Western Civilisation is only remaining in the legal system and bureaucratic administration structures. Unfortunately these two things are been inflated and in the process are been reinvented, for example corporate law in the USA and hate crime laws in Europe. So justice (based on Christian principals)is rapidly been denied. So to this end, a saint who is a lawyer, judge or legislature is much needed. We should really think of those things in Western civilisation we need to retrieve and those things we need to make obsolete. The pro-life movement in USA is a good example of the former.
When asked by a skeptic what would be seen if a video camera was set outside Jesus's tomb Easter morn, Peterson said, I think you would see Christ [risen from the dead] or words to this effect, but I don't know what that would mean. Pauls critique characterises Petersen untruthfully, he does have a kind of faith in the supernatural. Of course he has his foibles but I thought this was a little cheap. And I also see a danger when people do not seem to strike truthful chords. For the most part howver I thought this was beautifully put together.
I was Reminded of Rudyard Kiplings poem, Recessional. I think if i could summarise pauls talk, he Dares us to return to Christ. Which i think its important. I think with my reading of The Sacred and profane and the symbolism of the center, you can't have the peripherals without the center. I think paul critique of Jordan and Ayan, is that, they pay so much attention to the Peripherals, but have no strong hold on the center. But i do think paul seemed to sound like Civilization is inherently Bad. I would say Christ being a Capenter, makes him a Man of Civilization. A man of Technology. There is a huge different between shepherd or famer, and a Capenter, yet christ is both, and unite both. Unites Cain and Abel as pageau would say. I also think that Christianity does redifine Civilization. Saying this as an African though. And a Christian Civilization, strongly Connected to christ the center, gives us glimpses although still a shadow, but a shadow of the Heavenly Jerusalem.
Yes I agree with your interpretation here. As I was listening to the lecture, at one point I felt Kingsnorth was like John the Baptist, seeing what's round the corner as it were. He is being more prophetic than anything else and he quite rightly identifies how sincere we need to be for what's coming.
If you don't want to read Dominion by Tom Holland because it's massive check out The Book That Made Your World by Vishal Mangalawadi. His is much the same thesis but told from a first-person perspective. Fun and inspiring but pointedly analytical regarding the western world view.
‘Christianity is impractical, it’s intolerable, and it’s awful…its terrifying and it’s designed to kill you….love your neighbor, love your enemy, love God, do not resist evil, lay down your life for you friends, rule by serving, give away your wealth, let the dead bury the dead. We have our orders, and how we hate them.’ This dude gets it.
Sorry sir, I don’t buy it. I echo the concerns of Brian Anderson in the Q&A. Mr. Kingsnorth, for all his wisdom and eloquence conveyed through that brilliantly erudite accent, falls short in his positive vision for mankind. His criticism, like most criticism, flows effortlessly like his prose. His prescriptions for Christians in society, specifically our western society, are remarkably shy. It’s so easy to criticize the West. It’s so easy to straw man versions of the boogeyman. It’s difficult to offer up a vision for Christian living that doesn’t fall into one ditch or the other. Ascetic attempts have been made by naive Christians to live like the acts church after Pentecost and they have failed in outstanding fashion. The beatniks and the Jesus movements similarly tried to buck societal norms. Obviously, kings and governments have utilized Christianity pragmatically to build their civilizations, but to target these straw men as the root of our problems in the west is disingenuous, or misguided at best. Sin follows us wherever we go. You can try to sell your belongings and not resist evil. You can retreat into monastic living. You can try to build a Christian civilization with laws based on the Decalogue. All of these are motivated by a desire to live faithfully. But what is his standard for elevating some of Jesus’ teachings over others. Sounds like a romantic project to me. I’ll stick to men like Chesterton and Lewis who saw the need for Christian civilization alongside the mystics. Christianity is an embodied religion. Not simply a set of rational propositions, nor simply a shamanic initiation into we know not what. These simplistic reductions made by Mr. Kingsnorth do not answer the question of “How then should we live?” I’ll wait for more thought provoking answers to these perennial questions. Until then I’ll stick to what we have.
Aquinas points out that man is distinguished from all other creatures because he is not just the object/beneficiary of divine providence, but an active participant in it. Kingsnorth's view that farming(!) (vs. 'gardening'!) -- as what is surely the fundamental basis of civilization -- is anti-Christian seems downright absurd. Were he to consistently follow out the consequences of his simplistic interpretation of the Christian call as anti-civilizational, he'd have to embrace as a real possibility the need for catastrophic population collapse. He cherry-picks Anthony the Great as his paradigm Christian; but just ignores counter-paradigmatic saints like Gregory the Great, Augustine, Aquinas, Pius V, Pius X, etc. Typical Orthodox blindness/narrowness of vision?
There's no clear answer to the "So what?" after the Gospels, Jesus also says it will be as in the time of Noah, people marrying and being given in marriage. However, you are told to *strive* to walk through the narrow gate. You can't do nothing. Some are called as apostles, some as pastors, some as evangelists, etc. meaning the likeness of those following the way will not seem to be one, but it is! Perceive your calling. Do something or even give something up. I suggest to read Paul's essays on AbbeyofMisrule at Substack. I'm with Spengler; the stagnancy of this culture, of this time is suffocating.
@@davidmcpike8359 I don't think he "ignores" them, keep in mind he's a fairly young Christian and has focused his attention on saints and Orthodox figures who mostly clearly speak to him, as seems clear from reading his writings over the last few years. Which may be a shortcoming, but I don't think he's claiming to have all the answers. That being said, Mr. Kingsnorth does seem to feel uncomfortable with the idea of Christian civilization, even ones that survived a very long time like the Eastern Roman empire, Russia, Serbia, Georgia, Bulgaria, etc. in part because it might imply some kind of positive appraisal of contemporary Russia which he's clearly very hesitant to do, despite the fact that there's plenty of room for nuance between, say, Putin Is The Devil and Putin Will Save Us All.
"“How then should we live?” It's very simple. Look at what Jesus did. Then emulate it. Not to achieve some eternal reward, but because such behavior reflects the fundamental moral fabric of the universe. The religious ideas you parrot divides people into "saved" and "unsaved". This is exactly what institution does to people's hearts and minds. It divides. It says, "you must harbor this or that belief to be clean." Forget the afterlife. Live in the here life. Forget "sin" and all the fear-based trappings of religion. You have nothing to "accomplish for God." Actively seek what Jesus did: compassion, empathy, charity, hope, love, and a complete focus on the well-being of others rather than a focus on your own "salvation" or "afterlife". Your assessment is a rehash of the same institutional baggage that has kept humanity in religious chains for 2000 years. Become a human being, not a slave to institutional thinking. As some theologian once said, "Jesus didn't come to make us Christians. He came to make us fully human."
@@driz77 Though, it's funny how much of that language that you denounce here comes directly from the Gospels. Jesus himself talks about the saved and the damned many times, he even talks about throwing the damned into the fire (Mt 13:40-43, Mt 18:8-9, and so on). He tells us many times what his followers should believe and harbor (Mk 1:15, Mk 16:16, etc). He definitely doesn't want for his followers to forget the afterlife (Mt 16:26-28, and again Mt 18:8-9, and many more). He reminds them of "sin" lots of times (Mt 26:41, and once again, Mt 18:8-9, as well as many other verses). He commands people to fear God (Mt 10:28 and with all the many scary "eternal fire" cautions). He even builds a church in Mt 16:18, not without mentioning Hell once again. His disciples proceed to grow this Church and continue much of that same project that Jesus was doing... So, I don't know, I think it would be safe to say that those people that you are denouncing might have read the Gospels one or two times. What I'm finding strange is your message, it's more difficult to find it there in the way that you put it. It almost seems like a different religion entirely, with a made up Jesus.
" That twenty centuries of stony sleep Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle, And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born? " Yeats. Lord have mercy, it feels like it's coming; so close you hear/feel its breath.
Great talk Paul! Re Jesus admonition to "Resist not evil": Of course Jesus spent his life resisitng evil. So what did he mean? I think he meant "Do not use violence to resist evil". Do it with all the virtues Jesus taught us, love, forgiveness, humility etc. I also believe as Gandhi and others did, that we can/should use the tools of nonviolence. Also I think you are wrong in saying that the issue has been a problem from the start of Christianity. I think Christians believed and practiced nonviolence for the first 300 years, and only abandoned an insistence on it with Constantine. Why Augustine invented the Just War Theory I do not know. But I know it seems to contradict all that Jesus taught in this regard.
Well he knew that all sorts of sin would happen (he had done a lot himself), but he did not formulate theories to water them down, so that ordinary Christians would be able to still be Christians while sinning. Jesus admonitions re killing your enemies are pretty clear I think.
Kingsnorth is a Christian that is a follower of Christ. I don't know what to think of all of his provocations. I sense a lot of tension from this lefty Orthodox, convert, royalist giving a presentation behind the First Things banner. God though gives the increase and raises up who he will. I don't know about 'civilization' but I can and will pray thy kingdom come.
I was concerned that the right wing seemed to be claiming PK as one of their own lately and wondered if that might be influencing him. I was glad that this talk alleviated those fears.
One prays he remains far, far from the progressive NWO left, though... As I know he will. The international left are fake Christians - flagrant anti-Christians - willing to see the systematic perversion and indoctrination of children across the western world - the purposeful dumbing down of the populous - generation by generation - until humans become little more than useful fodder for the worldly rich... This vile agenda with all it's hoaxes piped into the minds of the imbecilic army of students, weak women and feminised men, is politicising fear, division, atheism/scientism and anger in order to fulfill the satanic leftist agenda of world control by secretive international elites. The Bible tells us what is coming - and for a while it won't be pretty - but it will separate the real Christians from the cowards ...And as we know, God's Almighty victory is already won (waiting there in a future - still yet to transpire ) - for US, praise the Lord. "US", that is, if we stay on the path to Salvation - in the emulation as best we can of His Righteousness. So, even politics means little once one fully embraces Christ. Obviously we can only vote for a political force more holy in its aspirations as best we can trust (freed from the constant brainwashing) - and that for many of us is clearly further right than left. I am sure PK can see this well. Abortion, War, Cutting up children, Increasing crime, the Woke agenda, Failure to bring back the death penalty for proven murderers, Failure to punish sexual perverts and thereby prevent future harm to innocents - etc, etc - these things are flagrantly against Christ and His Gospel. So, I do hope that PK remains as much an outsider as I am - away from all screens and lies as far as possible - and basks in the joy of undertaking this "terrible" ordeal of being FREE as only a Christian can from this perishing world.... Hope this makes sense. God Bless.
In a sense, he admits to it at 1:00:55 I personally find myself disagreeing with his seeming hatred of civilization itself. Civilization is a mere tool, a crutch man uses in his fallen state. It is not inherently evil - it posesses villainy or holiness in so much as its participants are villains or saints. Civilizations rise and fall by the oscillating proportions of those people inside it. I will say however that I absolutely agree with him on the wrong-headedness of "civilizational Christianity" as he described it, which has the civ coming before the Savior. Christ must always come first, and it horrifies me that someone would recognize the value of His teaching but not even try to take Him at His Word and worship Him as the God He proclaims Himself to be. When I hear someone say they're a "cultural Christian" or that they want to bring back the faith even though they don't actually believe in it, on the one hand I'm happy they've gotten as far as they have in their striving toward God. On the other hand, I cringe and look at them as though they had spewed a putrid pile of scum-soaked socks out of their mouths. I pity them, I feel absolutely miserable for them. Hearing such a person grasp for God and miss so sorely is like watching a person lost at sea grab for a life preserver and then start eating it while saying "I'm saved! Now I won't starve to death!". Meanwhile the rescuer (Christ) is trying to pull in the line before the would-be-rescued person finishes eating it! TL;DR: Civilization is not inherently evil, just a tool of admittedly fallen man, and he must worship God rather than his own culture. Anyone who tries to use God as a plow of "progress" for its own sake will find themselves sorely mistaken.
@@driz77 there is a gigantic, self flagellating political green movement in the UK. Degrowth, cities bad, noble pure indigenous spirituality, empire hating druid sympathizers. Much larger political green lobby than in the USA As a Canadian I hold a lot of similar political positions to him or at least understand them. I've voted for the Green Party in the past. The problem is Kingsnorth now sees all his former politics as the same message Jesus brings. That's a dangerous way to operate. His cause is now holy and conservatives are utilitarian even though he's equally harnessed Christ to a cause.
@@driz77 The people trying to use the Orthodox and the Heterodox Christians alike are nothing new - and in my personal opinion, the breed of our present century aren't even the best of the historical lot. It's almost silly how transparent our beloved moderns are about wanting the fruits of the Body of Christ without Her Head. One way or another, they'll find out no such separation will ever take place... No matter how hard they try. May God grant them to see the truth before they try and squeeze the "civilization juice" out of us like we're oranges. Even if they do, they'll only help make saints.
What's the name of the guy who cut his balls off because he didn't understand the teachings? And.. if you have two Most pastors and rabbis won't teach on this. Luke 3:11-17 NKJV [11] He answered and said to them, “He who has two tunics, let him give to him who has none; and he who has food, let him do likewise.” [12] Then tax collectors also came to be baptized, and said to him, “Teacher, what shall we do?” [13] And he said to them, “Collect no more than what is appointed for you.” [14] Likewise the soldiers asked him, saying, “And what shall we do?” So he said to them, “Do not intimidate anyone or accuse falsely, and be content with your wages.” [15] Now as the people were in expectation, and all reasoned in their hearts about John, whether he was the Christ or not, [16] John answered, saying to all, “I indeed baptize you with water; but One mightier than I is coming, whose sandal strap I am not worthy to loose. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. [17] His winnowing fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clean out His threshing floor, and gather the wheat into His barn; but the chaff He will burn with unquenchable fire.” bible.com/bible/114/luk.3.11-17.NKJV Buy a sword to defend yourself.. Luke 22:36-38 NKJV [36] Then He said to them, “But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. [37] For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me: ‘And He was numbered with the transgressors.’ For the things concerning Me have an end.” [38] So they said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.” And He said to them, “It is enough.” bible.com/bible/114/luk.22.36-38.NKJV
Kingsnorth makes some great points... however....many of the Bible quotes that he appeals to, to substantiate his criticism (which I agree with) are out of context, and misrepresent what Jesus actually meant by them. The premise of the Mosaic covenant was that Israel didn't have to concern themselves with the potential chaos, misfortune and evil of tomorrow, IF they were religiously obedient to God, because would providentially protect their land from invasion, and bless their agriculture so that they didn't need to amass wealth to offset circumstantial jeopardy. That is NOT the covenant agreement that New Covenant Church believers have with God today. Jesus could send His disciples out without money or even a change of clothes because it was Jewish religious Law that a Jew MUST help a fellow Jew when travelling, or incur God's wrath. Missionary ministries cannot anticipate the same theological economy today. The Apostle Paul worked to fund his own ministry. Kingsnorth, like many other socially left leaning people see a symmetry of principles in these quotations of Jesus, which in their original context, do not exist, or do not allow the same application as left leaning utopians would like. The Bible is explicitly clear that amassing wealth is not a 'way of life' for a Christian, but the idea we should, or even could, in a fallen world, all live like hermits, or as if we are in a Christian commune is overly idealistic, forcing political ambition upon the Bible, and theologically naive, at best, practically dangerous and presumptuous at worse. We live in a fallen world, Christianity is NOT a society founding faith because it is a POLEMIC against this fallen age/world.
yes, i think kingsnorth is as guilty as JBP in making Christianity in his image - it's just lucky that his image sounds a lot more pious than JBP's. If you put the two together, you get just the start the breadth of the actual Bible story. Notice no mention of God taking Moses OUT of the wilderness and making a people, the gloss on the Book of Judges, failure to talk about David or Solomon, no mention of revelation. also the GARDEN of Eden is a walled garden - not the wilderness and you cannot really understand most of the OT with the framework given here.
"Until the content of a belief is made clear, the appeal to accept the belief on faith is beside the point, for one would not know what one has accepted. The request for the meaning of a religious belief is logically prior to the question of accepting that belief on faith or to the question of whether that belief constitutes knowledge." Smith, George H.. Atheism: The Case Against God (The Skeptic's Bookshelf) (p. 30). Globe Pequot. Kindle Edition.
A relationship with the living God gives you a clear logical and reasonable mind. I wasn't the most logical or reasonable person until I had my mind cleaned by baptism and a relationship with the living God.
Can someone explain how does JBP can make five series on judeochristian values as the west foundations and not once did he talk about the return of Christ as king, savior and judge. I mean is christ return also a metaphorical truth? A journey of events? A one man show or litteraly the end of suffering for this specie???
Intro starts at 21:40
Paul Kingsnorth starts at 28:10
God bless you
Time stamp guy, thank you - I can tell you are a person with deep moral convictions, fortitude, strength, honor and duty in this virtuous service to your fellow man. You saved me twenty minutes so its worth 20 seconds of my time to thank you. 😅
Thank you muchly!❤🙏
@@Eilfylijokulamen.
Thank you
wonderfull lecture - and important critique on Jordan Petersons shallow christian reading
I really loved this lecture. It's opened a door for me into Christianity which I have always before seen as too doctrinal, too structured, too much like the machine.
Jordan Peterson has five series where he talks about judeochristian values as the basis of western civilization material success, never once did he mentions the gospels.
Doesn't he have a new series coming out on the gospels?
He’s highlighted a lot of judeo aspect of it. I agree he has often failed to highlight more of the new, part of that is because Christians have done a bad job of showing the continuity between NT and OT
Don't worry that one, on the Gospels, is on its way.
When restoring and regathering Israel you don’t need to feel threatened if it doesn’t start with your own tradition first. There’s plenty of evidence of God’s prophets originating outside the mainstream tradition.
Maybe material success is an oxymoron?
“We should accept it, we should even embrace it.” Thank you for the courage and humility.
The video for TGROG
@ I was thinking that too!
@@2stephenschwartzwhat’s TGROG?
I don’t know what he means by “embrace”. “Accept” I can interpret as acknowledge that it exists, but I’m not sure about “embrace”. Embrace, to me means to participate, be a part of. That, I cannot.
This makes be want to have him back on Grail Country because this is precisely the alarm I keep sounding and gets to the core of my Christian Anarchism.
I could listen to Paul Kingsnorth talk for hours. Such brilliant and thoughtful insights.Thank you for this ❤🌿
Excellent lecture as always Mr. Paul Kingsnorth.
I thank God for First Things and events like this. They are rare these days.
This was such an inspiring lecture. Thank you and may the peace of Christ be with you.
So many brilliantly articulated gems in this talk, a true, clear voice of reason, thank you Mr Kingsnorth.
Much to chew on with this excellent talk. I could listen to Mr. Kingsnorth speak for ages, and this talk was no exception. I hesitate to offer any criticism, not only because I am about as baby of a Christian as they come, but also because I feel a sort of compulsive desire to agree as a knee-jerk to such an eloquently presented, thought provoking, and challenging presentation. I think there are a couple of missing ingredients to the case that adjust the lighting a bit, which I've been digesting since I first watched this talk.
First, on the subject of the (former(?)) atheists arriving at Christianity, or its culture/trappings/faith-stripped practices and other peripheries, at least, as a balm for the crises of modernity, I think that Kingsnorth has it inside-out, and perhaps wants too much of brand-new, or even not-yet, Christians. Yes, they are wading in the shallower peripheries, but what does any newcomer in any context arrive at first but the periphery, going deeper as they approach the center? I tend to extend a little grace; as far as Peterson goes, he's unfailingly careful not to speak "as a Christian," which gives him credit with me - he seems to be feeling his way in from the periphery - I pray that he does ultimately find the center, and I'm thankful that his imperfection is guiding as many into the depths as it seems to be (myself included). My opinion would be very different if Peterson were speaking as a Christian, but he unequivocally, and very carefully, isn't. It's obviously important to recognize that periphery for what it is, but how else does anyone get to the center of a thing but through the peripheries first? Especially such a big thing as the Gospel message and its implications for souls and civilizations, and to a person so steeped in the modern impossibility of its literality? Kingsnorth's critique of the Christian-dabbling or newly-believing "dissident right" types absolutely has a nugget of truth and fairness in it in comparison to thinkers who have discovered and embraced the center in faith, but ultimately seems overweighted in service of his argument.
Secondly, I continue to contemplate the "civilization" element of Mr. Kingsnorth's critique. There's a smattering of the Rousseauian in his perspective that I'm grappling with, and I suspect the theme that might reconcile it all is the Fall. Equating "civilization" with "cities" seems a stretch even at the level of the dictionary. Even a city can be more or less civilized (I'd argue that that depends deeply on the overlap between that city's culture and Christianity, if not in True belief in the Gospel at least in the value of its behavioral norms and base philosophical assumptions). The characterization of the pre-Fall Edenic world is that of "garden," which implies a "civilizing" sort of influence (God's direct presence, in the case of Eden?) beyond the state of nature. I would argue that we are a "civilization" to the extent that we properly exercise ourselves as Imago Dei, and that we are "wilderness" insofar as we fail to do so, giving in and over to our Fallen brokenness or even deeper to purposeful Evil. The wall can enclose a paradisal garden that is in ultimate and personal union with God and His purpose, or a dystopian nightmare hellscape a la "Escape from New York." The periphery alone isn't enough to get us to Christendom, and Kingsnorth's critique is well taken here by me, I think, that the price for neglecting the center for the periphery is "awe"ful. But as much as the pastoral hermit Christianity in rejection (or, at least, skepticism) of civilization, the Enemy dwells and tempts as strongly in the wilderness as inside the walls. The battle is, and has always been, within human hearts, and the state of those hearts is what makes the state world, no matter how dense the population. Retreating from civilization to the wilderness is not a guarantee to find God... indeed, in my (very novice) reading of the Bible, it seems like the Devil tempts there all the more strongly.
I've over-rambled here quite a lot there, especially considering the topic, but do want to reiterate my thanks to Mr. Kingsnorth for an excellent talk; it's lived rent-free in my head for a couple of days already, and likely will for longer. Provoking and disquieting in exactly the right measures. I'll be listening again, and look forward to the inevitable commentaries and responses from other of my favorite speakers for more insights on these ideas.
You summarize so beautifully the dilemma of a real tension between Godliness and worldliness. Excellent.
I am pretty much aligned with him. We preach Christ and Make Disciples with fear and trembling, letting the world know we are Christ's disciples by how we love one another. We are not here to preserve nations, not states or races, we are here to witness the glory of God through our suffering and our flourishing.
A beautiful, profound lecture-a perfect one to listen to at Christmas. I think I'll make it an annual tradition.
Love ya Paul, you're a good lad
A very timely lecture as the world falls headfirst into the false light movement. Thanks for all your work, Paul!
Thank you for publishing this lecture. Paul Kingsnorth is an authentic Christian.
As an Anabaptist, this basically expresses my faith in a nutshell. God bless you, Mr. Kingsnorth.
Thank you Paul. You inspire me.
One of the more enlightening lectures I've heard in years.
I love Paul, and this was an excellent speech. However, I think the notion that Christians have a fundamental dichotomy: fighting to save the Western Civilization or repenting to be not just false, but dangerously false. Martin Luther King Jr. fought for civil rights, and he did it in a Christian way. It seems to me that this is what the times call for. Yes, pride and anger are dangers. But, so is passivity. We are not called to be passive. I also believe the US involvement in WWII was also justified. This either/or kind of thinking is too limiting. We are not all called to be monks or hermits, and we do indeed need to defend when the times call for it.
MLK eventually realized that capital, war and oppression are all one thing. That’s why they had to eliminate him, because he would lead millions to secede from the machine anticulture and live as free Christians. The machine maintains a religion that blesses theft and murder and prevents Christianity from ever appearing. Christian Nationalism is its new face.
Civil rights is often explained as a black historical achievement, but the reality is it only happened because it was good for Euro-American civilization. It’s best explained through a process called “interest convergence”.
The leaders of Euro-American civilization were claiming moral superiority over Russia’s communist civilization, but everywhere they went people would respond, “morally superior? You lynch Negroes.”
At the time America was an apartheid state, and Blacks were claiming the US was engaged in genocide, protesting against American civilization, and attempting to go to war against the empire.
Since the civil rights movement was the most peaceful, asked for the least, and had a moral, Christian ethos to it, the leaders of Euro-American civilization decided to pretend to come to Jesus. (Interests converged.) They rewrote the laws (it was just words on paper) and then proceeded to spend the next several decades rounding up Blacks into prisons in record numbers to prevent another uprising.
King’s mission was to bring salvation to his people. Fighting evil got him killed and in the aftermath millions of Blacks were incarcerated. Many Black leaders were killed, and to this day Black people live under the tyranny of Euro-American Civilization.
@@jacobjames5536 Let's start with the initial claim that Euro American civilization was attempting to spread "morality" and were getting mocked by Communist countries for our race relations--I find this utterly baffling. You mean Russia? Are they known for their progressive views on race relations? What in hell's name are you talking about? "Everywhere they went". Where is everywhere, who was traveling to everywhere, and where are all these supposed places that had enlightened views on race relations in the early-mid 20th century?
@@radphilospherYes. America’s claim that they had the only moral economic system and that other systems, specifically communism, were immoral was a big part of US Cold War propaganda and was easily refuted by the reality of the country’s segregation laws, both within the country and in abroad, such as in Europe, Latin America, and Africa.
Brilliant lecture
Simply brilliant, thank you Mr Kingsnorth
Excellent lecture
Thank you, Paul. A challenging and humbling proposal. ♥
😢Beautiful, thank you.
Thank you for this spiritually provoking talk. ❤
If only we could hear this, as a race upon Earth.
Hate evil, love good, And establish justice in the gate!... (Amos 5:15)
Yes! Well done!
31:20 The Anglo Saxons were Christian at the time of the Norman Conquest!
All of them except for Buccmaster of Holland ...
Yes but the archbishop of England was denounced as a schismatic in 1052 by the Roman papacy. William invaded England with the Pope's blessing to bring the nation into the Roman Catholic church
@@Eilfylijokul They were already in the church, and had been for centuries. What Rome wanted was more centralisation, and more open papacy, and William was happy to oblige.
@@Peekay72 a socmaster with 3 oxgangs?
Therefore, take up the full armor of God, so that you will be able to resist in the evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm. (Ephesians 6:13)
Traditional, Biblical, Radical and Prophetic….like Jesus Christ. Thank you Mr. Kingsnorth.
These are well-articulated thoughts about the unworldliness/otherworldiness of the true Christian faith, but something seems missing her - something about "salt" and "light". Consider this account of Captain John Whidden wherein he witnesses an Indian sacrificial festival in 1856, found in his memoir published in 1908:
"We passed up the Bay of Bengal on the last end of the southwest monsoon, and experienced light winds and generally pleasant weather. We made the pilot brig, and taking a pilot on board, an old acquaintance of Captain Meacom, entered the Hoogly, proceeding up the river. A Hindoo religious festival was being held at Saugor Island, and the river was covered with boats decorated with flowers containing gaily dressed natives, male and female, all bound for the island to take part in the rites. These consisted, in part, of offering their female children to the immense crocodiles that swarmed in the waters of the Hoogly and especially around Saugor at this time. The cries and shrieks of the victims were drowned in the music and shouting of the multitude. This custom of sacrificing female children has since been done away with by the government."
That is, the British colonial ("Christian") gov't. Does not the Christianization of human society, through the influence of Christians in it, rightly result in the "civilization" of it? Is it not a means by which God imparts His grace to mankind and increases His "reknown" in the world? (Isaiah 55) it seems to me that there is something called "Human flourising" that the Word testifies to - "righteousness exalts a nation"...etc.. - and that this flourishing is an intended result of Christ's work.
Also, I read Eastman's biography years ago, and I think PK is not completely doing justice the author's position, as he clearly clearly regarded the faith and society that he adopted to be superior to the one he had been born into. He was a remarkable man and a true Christian.
PK seems like a wonderful brother in Christ, and I appreciate his thought-provoking insights. May the Lord help us all increase in the knowledge of God and our Lord Jesus Christ, and especially in our understanding of our calling to sanctify ourselves and thus impact our world for His glory.
Some parallels to Tom Holland's thinking.
@@michaelgrey1296
The Message of the Crucifixion
For learning purposes, let us consider the crucifixion again. I did not dwell on it before because of the fearful connotations you may associate with it. ³The only emphasis laid upon it so far has been that it was not a form of punishment. ⁴Nothing, however, can be explained in negative terms only. ⁵There is a positive interpretation of the crucifixion that is wholly devoid of fear, and therefore wholly benign in what it teaches, if it is properly understood.
2. The crucifixion is nothing more than an extreme example. ²Its value, like the value of any teaching device, lies solely in the kind of learning it facilitates. ³It can be, and has been, misunderstood. ⁴This is only because the fearful are apt to perceive fearfully. ⁵I have already told you that you can always call on me to share my decision, and thus make it stronger. ⁶I have also told you that the crucifixion was the last useless journey the Sonship need take, and that it represents release from fear to anyone who understands it. ⁷While I emphasized only the resurrection before, the purpose of the crucifixion and how it actually led to the resurrection was not clarified then. ⁸Nevertheless, it has a definite contribution to make to your own life, and if you will consider it without fear, it will help you understand your own role as a teacher.
3. You have probably reacted for years as if you were being crucified. ²This is a marked tendency of the separated, who always refuse to consider what they have done to themselves. ³Projection means anger, anger fosters assault, and assault promotes fear. ⁴The real meaning of the crucifixion lies in the _apparent_ intensity of the assault of some of the Sons of God upon another. ⁵This, of course, is impossible, and must be fully understood _as_ impossible. ⁶Otherwise, I cannot serve as a model for learning.
4. Assault can ultimately be made only on the body. ²There is little doubt that one body can assault another, and can even destroy it. ³Yet if destruction itself is impossible, anything that is destructible cannot be real. ⁴Its destruction, therefore, does not justify anger. ⁵To the extent to which you believe that it does, you are accepting false premises and teaching them to others. ⁶The message the crucifixion was intended to teach was that it is not necessary to perceive any form of assault in persecution, because you cannot _be_ persecuted. ⁷If you respond with anger, you must be equating yourself with the destructible, and are therefore regarding yourself insanely.
5. I have made it perfectly clear that I am like you and you are like me, but our fundamental equality can be demonstrated only through joint decision. ²You are free to perceive yourself as persecuted if you choose. ³When you do choose to react that way, however, you might remember that I was persecuted as the world judges, and did not share this evaluation for myself. ⁴And because I did not share it, I did not strengthen it. ⁵I therefore offered a different interpretation of attack, and one which I want to share with you. ⁶If you will believe it, you will help me teach it.
6. As I have said before, “As you teach so shall you learn.” ²If you react as if you are persecuted, you are teaching persecution. ³This is not a lesson a Son of God should want to teach if he is to realize his own salvation. ⁴Rather, teach your own perfect immunity, which is the truth in you, and realize that it cannot _be_ assailed. ⁵Do not try to protect it yourself, or you are believing that it is assailable. ⁶You are not asked to be crucified, which was part of my own teaching contribution. ⁷You are merely asked to follow my example in the face of much less extreme temptations to misperceive, and not to accept them as false justifications for anger. ⁸There can be no justification for the unjustifiable. ⁹Do not believe there is, and do not teach that there is. ¹⁰Remember always that what you believe you will teach. ¹¹Believe with me, and we will become equal as teachers.
I am sorry when my brothers do not share my decision to hear only one Voice, because it weakens them as teachers and as learners. Yet I know they cannot really betray themselves or me, and that it is still on them that I must build my church. There is no choice in this, because only you can be the foundation of God's church. A church is where an altar is, and the presence of the altar is what makes the church holy. A church that does not inspire love has a hidden altar that is not serving the purpose for which God intended it. I must found His church on you, because those who accept me as a model are literally my disciples. Disciples are followers, and if the model they follow has chosen to save them pain in all respects, they are unwise not to follow him.
I elected, for your sake and mine, to demonstrate that the most outrageous assault, as judged by the ego, does not matter. As the world judges these things, but not as God knows them, I was betrayed, abandoned, beaten, torn, and finally killed. It was clear that this was only because of the projection of others onto me, since I had not harmed anyone and had healed many.
We are still equal as learners, although we do not need to have equal experiences. The Holy Spirit is glad when you can learn from mine, and be reawakened by them. That is their only purpose, and that is the only way in which I can be perceived as the way, the truth and the life. When you hear only one Voice you are never called on to sacrifice. On the contrary, by being able to hear the Holy Spirit in others you can learn from their experiences, and can gain from them without experiencing them directly yourself. That is because the Holy Spirit is one, and anyone who listens is inevitably led to demonstrate His way for all.
You are not persecuted, nor was I. You are not asked to repeat my experiences because the Holy Spirit, Whom we share, makes this unnecessary. To use my experiences constructively, however, you must still follow my example in how to perceive them. My brothers and yours are constantly engaged in justifying the unjustifiable. My one lesson, which I must teach as I learned it, is that no perception that is out of accord with the judgment of the Holy Spirit can be justified. I undertook to show this was true in an extreme case, merely because it would serve as a good teaching aid to those whose temptation to give in to anger and assault would not be so extreme. I will with God that none of His Sons should suffer.
The crucifixion cannot be shared because it is the symbol of projection, but the resurrection is the symbol of sharing because the reawakening of every Son of God is necessary to enable the Sonship to know its wholeness. Only this is knowledge.
The message of the crucifixion is perfectly clear:
_"Teach only love, for that is what you are."_
If you interpret the crucifixion in any other way, you are using it as a weapon for assault rather than as the call for peace for which it was intended. The Apostles often misunderstood it, and for the same reason that anyone misunderstands it. Their own imperfect love made them vulnerable to projection, and out of their own fear they spoke of the "wrath of God" as His retaliatory weapon. Nor could they speak of the crucifixion entirely without anger, because their sense of guilt had made them angry.
These are some of the examples of upside-down thinking in the New Testament, although its gospel is really only the message of love. If the Apostles had not felt guilty, they never could have quoted me as saying, "I come not to bring peace but a sword." This is clearly the opposite of everything I taught. Nor could they have described my reactions to Judas as they did, if they had really understood me. I could not have said, "Betrayest thou the Son of Man with a kiss?" unless I believed in betrayal. The whole message of the crucifixion was simply that I did not. The "punishment" I was said to have called forth upon Judas was a similar mistake. Judas was my brother and a Son of God, as much a part of the Sonship as myself. Was it likely that I would condemn him when I was ready to demonstrate that condemnation is impossible?
A Course In Miracles (1975)
Author: _Jesus Christ_
Render unto civilization things that belong to it. Render to the ineffable the eternalities of your processional soul.
Beautiful. Challenging. Maybe impossible?
Just read this online. Feels like one of the most important things I’ve ever read to be honest.
Absolutely brilliant and necessary
Excellent, thought provoking, and challenging lecture.
Amen. Love is mightier than the sword.
Paul is advocating for a valid and true strand of ancient Christianity. This is the Christianity of the desert fathers that build the Christian civilization.
Good lecture, but I believe in Kingsnorth's earnest desire to do what Jesus did, he may need to hold other passages in tension. Sure, some are called to give up everything, but Jesus called His followers to different types of commitment. Luke 9:57-62 is a good example. Three people, but three different impediments to following Jesus. No one size fits all. So, I love the spirit of Kingsnorth's exhortation but it does not juggle other truths in the Bible that are crucial to remember.
Im a poor theology student, and I like your comment
Good point. I’m very impressed with this lecture, much to think about.
Again, much good and provocative stuff. I do think he commits a common error at times of making a truth the whole truth.
Perhaps, but the core truths presented here will survive when all others have faded. These are central to Jesus. Without them, Jesus becomes little more than a good moral philosopher.
No. There are only three guises to the same impediment: worldliness on our part. Christ was clear to all: He is the Way, the Truth and the Life, and we are to pick up our cross and follow Him. That we are willing to do this to some degree or another is on us, not on any 'levels of commitment' inherent in His calling us.
A powerfully challenging and incredibly thought-provoking lecture. That's for sure. Thanks First Things and Dr. Kingsnorth. And yet I, like one of the questioners, wonder about aspects of Kingsnorth's literal interpretations. Can you really have hospitals and universities, for example, apart from a "civilizational" component? Would not every culture, by definition, be antithetical to the Word according to Kingsnorth? I respect his point that we are to reject the tempting vision of modern-day crusaders who will rise up and restore our once-glorious Christian civilization. But could the next culture that emerges, a culture closer to the City of God than our own, not make use of the embers of Western culture? I'd really like to hear Jordan Peterson and Patrick Deneen (for different reasons) respond to this lecture!
Right; Kingsnorth seems to jump from the fact that universities and hospitals can become corrupted institutions within corrupt civilizations to the claim that universities and hospitals are not existentially dependent on a civilized context. Not a plausible leap of logic.
My audio volume is max'ed out and I cannot hear him adequately. I am not deaf! Perhaps this will appear in FT.
“Christianity is impractical, it’s intolerable, and it’s awful in the original sense of that word. It’s terrifying and it’s designed to kill you.” Kingsnorth
Amen.
The first half hour was crowd noises; then, when we finally get to the introduction, the sound was so low, I gave up after fifteen minutes. Come on, First Things, the first thing you ought to do is upload this video with proper editing and decent sound.
30 minutes in and you’ll finally get to Kingsnorth
A very interesting speech as ever. I am not a Christian, but, perhaps for the wrong reasons, in Mr Kingsnorth’s view, I am intensely curious about the church and its role in the history of my home (England). I’m at a stage in my life when, along with all my other beliefs (unthinking leftism, feminism…) I am re-evaluating EVERYTHING.
I’d like to make a few comments from that perspective. I had the privilege of being at the Unherd Club listening to Ayaan Hirsi Ali speak a few days after her bombshell article was published. I would suggest that there is more to her conversion than was possible to write in that piece, which would have been severely limited by word count. The ‘culture war’ aspect was perhaps the dominant theme, and it served brilliantly as clickbait. However, having listened to her speak I would be inclined to wait for her book and a more comprehensive account before passing judgement. She’s taken the plunge (and caused controversy) by publicly asserting her conversion. Maybe it’s premature. She admitted she has much learning to do, but she spoke not only of the cultural / historic aspects and the contrast with her former faith, but also of the spiritual succour she had found, that her years of non-belief had failed to provide, leading her to depression and dependence on alcohol. In short, I suspect there is much more to her public conversion than sticking it to the Islamists / woke.
As to Jordan Peterson, as far as I know, he makes no claim to be a Christian. I’ve been watching his Gospel series, where he makes repeated reference to God and Christ. But he defers to the Christians in the room as appropriate - Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant are all represented.
I sense a touch of pride in this account. Has Mr Kingsnorth forgotten what it’s like NOT to believe? It can’t be so long ago, can it? I don’t think JBP is trying to convert anyone. He is a psychologist and cultural commentator, and his mission has been, in my view, to alert people to the dangerous hubris and spiritual emptiness of atheism and atheistic ideologies and the murderous results of same. I would say he has done a fantastic job.
To me, as a former new atheist and National Secular Society member, who recoiled at the idea of Christianity, to my shame principally for the reason that it was so deeply uncool, he has brought these ancient stories to life, and made me realise that there is deep wisdom, indeed truth within them. He has not ‘brought me to Christ‘, nor is that his aim or desire. But he, and C S Lewis and Francis Spufford and Glen Scrivener and others, have brought me to the water’s edge, as another commenter put it. I’m not entirely sure, where to go next. This is likely to be a long-drawn-out process, if only because, I recognise that being a true Christian would cost so much - perhaps more than I am willing to give. I know this, despite getting most of my religious education from the likes of the good professor. So perhaps he’d doing something right after all.
I am so glad I found this. I have had this nagging feeling for some years now that as a follower of Jesus & what he told us to do, I am just interpreting it to my own convenience. What am I going to do about ? I certainly will not take up my cross & use it as a sword. My desire is to do what’s right but I live as a man of God in a culture al soup that speaks every minute of everyday that we should do whatever is our will. Would greatly appreciate your thoughts?
This brings to mind the age old question: If weak men are created by good times and themselves create hard times, how do we prevent the good times from creating weak men? Doing so would theoretically prevent the existence of hard times.
The best explanation I know of is that the man living in the good times must cultivate virtue forcibly, like a sedentary man must go to a gym to be fit. A man in the hard times is forced by his environs to cultivate virtue to survive, there's no wiggle room to be lazy in. A man in the good times meanwhile has to force himself.
Let God take care of the civilizational cycles. ❤
We seem to have much more local work to be done. 🙃
At least that is how I understood Jesus's teachings. 🤷❤️
That happens when you're not on a correct path, roughly after 1000 year AD the whole western world is going from one extreme to another, from one extreme ideology to another, guess why? Because it's all on a "naturalistic" path - it's always a reaction to a reaction to a reaction and so it goes
'it's something I struggle with'...yes, perhaps that's the point, it's not a living faith if you don't? I grew up in a version of Christianity, Quakerism, that effectively 'institutionalised the struggle', and made 'meeting for worship' the time when any of the congregation could get up and express what their conscience and 'communion with the spirit' had brought forth within them, guided by the gospels and the basic values Quakers distilled from them. Sometimes it took a long time to change people's minds. I was astonished to discover that the Quakers who I thought had championed the abolition of slavery from day one, had in fact taken years to be converted to that belief by a maverick they had more or less banished from their midst, but in the end saw the wisdom of. That process never ends as far as I can see.
I mean, I respect Paul, and Jordan peterson. I don't always agree with everything Jordan Peterson say, and Jordan is Neither a confessing Christian nor a clergyman. But i think Paul made a Big Caricature of Jordans thoughts here, as somebody who has listened closely to Jordan. One would think paul was talking about Andrew tate, if they've never heard Jordan.
He may paint with a broad brush, but it isn't a caricature because nothing is exaggerated.
It is a bit of a strawman, as Jordan Peterson says "Clean your room before you criticize the world". To Peterson, there is no returning to Christian civilization without individual transformation whereas Paul considers the two mutually exclusive. These are different Christianities, Paul's is of monks and hermits whereas JBP's is of common people which Paul either rejects or considers a lost cause.
Kingsnorth has very valid points about Peterson. Tbh Peterson reminds me of the protestants in Scotland who are very involved in their church, in fact taking high positions for themselves whilst also attending their weekly meeting at the Masonic Lodge. These people defend Protestant Christianity as if it were a culture.
Great talk, terrifying. I found the Peterson critique unnecessarily harsh though. I think Peterson is doing a great service pointing the way for the truly lost - those that wouldn't be able to hear, let alone comprehend, the likes of Kingsnorth, Pageau, or Bishop Barron. One must begin somewhere on Jacob's Ladder, and for most of us it will be at the bottom.
Not sure it was ‘unnecessarily’ harsh. Perhaps a bit but as a Peterson admirer I understand why Kingsnorth feels the need to put the Jesus horse back before the psych lingo jungian archetype cart. It’s easy to get lost in what some term but psychobabel when in the end what is MOST important is not the utility of biblical stories to inspire righteous behaviors but rather relationship with God the Father, Son & Holy Spirit.
@@charlestrella711 Certainly and granted. I nevertheless see Peterson as a much-needed "gateway" for those so immersed in our post-Enlightenment culture that they need an intellectual or materialist bridge before they can even begin to appreciate what awaits them on the other side. I was - sometimes still am - one of those people, and I suspect we are many. Hence my gratitude to the good doctor, whatever his ultimate shortcomings from a truly Christian perspective.
@@aodh_séamus Ah. I see your point. If JP is providing a bridge for many who feel SO alienated from and by Christians that any hint of ‘Christian’ eschatology can actually trigger the close the door reaction, I suppose his standing apart from or at least not verbalizing what could be seen as proselytizing is a good thing. I think for many of we committed Christians it can start to feel like it’s missing the main point. Especially for someone new to the faith like Kingsnorth it seems like never getting to the main point. Thanks!
I think Paul made a Caricature of petersons Thoughts. And I don't always agree with everything petersons say, but that was a bad simplification of his thoughts. I remember peterson really explaining the tower of babel as a model for why civilizations fall, and he did mention and raised some of the concerns Paul is raising here. I think Paul wasn't charitable to Jordan, and I doubt he has really invested attention into Jordans work. He almost painted Jordan like an andrew tate figure.
Though on the other hand, I don't consider Jordan a Christian or a Clergyman, so I am weary about most of the things he says.
I think you are right in some ways, he has inmense value for some people, but you haven't seen the blind spots of Jordan get, he's fight is very political, he's very polarized. I'm an ex-fan, seen hundreds of hours of his material, it was not until I got out of the club that I realized his blind spots
A clarion clear call, and the key to it all is metanoia - the inner turning in each one of us, that will make the outer right, and bring the kingdom down to earth.
A grounding lecture by Mr Kingsnorth. I think that Western Civilisation is only remaining in the legal system and bureaucratic administration structures. Unfortunately these two things are been inflated and in the process are been reinvented, for example corporate law in the USA and hate crime laws in Europe. So justice (based on Christian principals)is rapidly been denied. So to this end, a saint who is a lawyer, judge or legislature is much needed.
We should really think of those things in Western civilisation we need to retrieve and those things we need to make obsolete. The pro-life movement in USA is a good example of the former.
Excellent and thought provoking.
Beautiful talk, very much appreciated it.
But why is there 21 1/2 minutes of Nothing before the talk begins?
Amen. Thank you.
sound is very low, hard to hear.
Stunning, from beginning to end.
You've been awfully quiet of late Brandon!
When asked by a skeptic what would be seen if a video camera was set outside Jesus's tomb Easter morn, Peterson said, I think you would see Christ [risen from the dead] or words to this effect, but I don't know what that would mean. Pauls critique characterises Petersen untruthfully, he does have a kind of faith in the supernatural. Of course he has his foibles but I thought this was a little cheap. And I also see a danger when people do not seem to strike truthful chords. For the most part howver I thought this was beautifully put together.
I was Reminded of Rudyard Kiplings poem, Recessional. I think if i could summarise pauls talk, he Dares us to return to Christ. Which i think its important. I think with my reading of The Sacred and profane and the symbolism of the center, you can't have the peripherals without the center. I think paul critique of Jordan and Ayan, is that, they pay so much attention to the Peripherals, but have no strong hold on the center.
But i do think paul seemed to sound like Civilization is inherently Bad. I would say Christ being a Capenter, makes him a Man of Civilization. A man of Technology. There is a huge different between shepherd or famer, and a Capenter, yet christ is both, and unite both. Unites Cain and Abel as pageau would say.
I also think that Christianity does redifine Civilization. Saying this as an African though. And a Christian Civilization, strongly Connected to christ the center, gives us glimpses although still a shadow, but a shadow of the Heavenly Jerusalem.
Yes I agree with your interpretation here. As I was listening to the lecture, at one point I felt Kingsnorth was like John the Baptist, seeing what's round the corner as it were. He is being more prophetic than anything else and he quite rightly identifies how sincere we need to be for what's coming.
So blessed be be at this event 🙏😎
If you don't want to read Dominion by Tom Holland because it's massive check out The Book That Made Your World by Vishal Mangalawadi. His is much the same thesis but told from a first-person perspective. Fun and inspiring but pointedly analytical regarding the western world view.
Holland's book is a must-read
Thank you. Much to contemplate. 🙏🌸
Did Paul (K) ever quote Paul (the A.)? Would the latter have agreed with the former?
I see no reason to think he would have disagreed, do you?
‘Christianity is impractical, it’s intolerable, and it’s awful…its terrifying and it’s designed to kill you….love your neighbor, love your enemy, love God, do not resist evil, lay down your life for you friends, rule by serving, give away your wealth, let the dead bury the dead. We have our orders, and how we hate them.’
This dude gets it.
Partially - like the rest of us that claim to follow Christ.
What a legend
The people who created the hospital were the Hospitaler Knights, a Crusading order.
Amen
Civilization VS Culture ⚖️ ⛪☦️🕊️⛲🕯️📿
Saints Paisios and Anthony, pray for us!
"Cyclical" 💫 🌊 ☀️🌳🌙⚓✨🌐
Grace and peace to you.....
The fear of the Lord is to hate evil; Pride and arrogance and the evil way And the perverted mouth, I hate. (Proverbs 8:13)
Ouch - I feel the keen edge of the Sword of the Spirit dividing asunder deep things within. A Nathan-like rebuke.
Sorry sir, I don’t buy it. I echo the concerns of Brian Anderson in the Q&A.
Mr. Kingsnorth, for all his wisdom and eloquence conveyed through that brilliantly erudite accent, falls short in his positive vision for mankind. His criticism, like most criticism, flows effortlessly like his prose. His prescriptions for Christians in society, specifically our western society, are remarkably shy.
It’s so easy to criticize the West. It’s so easy to straw man versions of the boogeyman. It’s difficult to offer up a vision for Christian living that doesn’t fall into one ditch or the other.
Ascetic attempts have been made by naive Christians to live like the acts church after Pentecost and they have failed in outstanding fashion. The beatniks and the Jesus movements similarly tried to buck societal norms. Obviously, kings and governments have utilized Christianity pragmatically to build their civilizations, but to target these straw men as the root of our problems in the west is disingenuous, or misguided at best.
Sin follows us wherever we go. You can try to sell your belongings and not resist evil. You can retreat into monastic living. You can try to build a Christian civilization with laws based on the Decalogue. All of these are motivated by a desire to live faithfully. But what is his standard for elevating some of Jesus’ teachings over others. Sounds like a romantic project to me. I’ll stick to men like Chesterton and Lewis who saw the need for Christian civilization alongside the mystics. Christianity is an embodied religion. Not simply a set of rational propositions, nor simply a shamanic initiation into we know not what. These simplistic reductions made by Mr. Kingsnorth do not answer the question of “How then should we live?” I’ll wait for more thought provoking answers to these perennial questions. Until then I’ll stick to what we have.
Aquinas points out that man is distinguished from all other creatures because he is not just the object/beneficiary of divine providence, but an active participant in it. Kingsnorth's view that farming(!) (vs. 'gardening'!) -- as what is surely the fundamental basis of civilization -- is anti-Christian seems downright absurd. Were he to consistently follow out the consequences of his simplistic interpretation of the Christian call as anti-civilizational, he'd have to embrace as a real possibility the need for catastrophic population collapse. He cherry-picks Anthony the Great as his paradigm Christian; but just ignores counter-paradigmatic saints like Gregory the Great, Augustine, Aquinas, Pius V, Pius X, etc. Typical Orthodox blindness/narrowness of vision?
There's no clear answer to the "So what?" after the Gospels, Jesus also says it will be as in the time of Noah, people marrying and being given in marriage. However, you are told to *strive* to walk through the narrow gate. You can't do nothing. Some are called as apostles, some as pastors, some as evangelists, etc. meaning the likeness of those following the way will not seem to be one, but it is! Perceive your calling. Do something or even give something up.
I suggest to read Paul's essays on AbbeyofMisrule at Substack. I'm with Spengler; the stagnancy of this culture, of this time is suffocating.
@@davidmcpike8359 I don't think he "ignores" them, keep in mind he's a fairly young Christian and has focused his attention on saints and Orthodox figures who mostly clearly speak to him, as seems clear from reading his writings over the last few years. Which may be a shortcoming, but I don't think he's claiming to have all the answers.
That being said, Mr. Kingsnorth does seem to feel uncomfortable with the idea of Christian civilization, even ones that survived a very long time like the Eastern Roman empire, Russia, Serbia, Georgia, Bulgaria, etc. in part because it might imply some kind of positive appraisal of contemporary Russia which he's clearly very hesitant to do, despite the fact that there's plenty of room for nuance between, say, Putin Is The Devil and Putin Will Save Us All.
"“How then should we live?”
It's very simple. Look at what Jesus did. Then emulate it. Not to achieve some eternal reward, but because such behavior reflects the fundamental moral fabric of the universe.
The religious ideas you parrot divides people into "saved" and "unsaved". This is exactly what institution does to people's hearts and minds. It divides. It says, "you must harbor this or that belief to be clean."
Forget the afterlife. Live in the here life. Forget "sin" and all the fear-based trappings of religion. You have nothing to "accomplish for God." Actively seek what Jesus did: compassion, empathy, charity, hope, love, and a complete focus on the well-being of others rather than a focus on your own "salvation" or "afterlife".
Your assessment is a rehash of the same institutional baggage that has kept humanity in religious chains for 2000 years. Become a human being, not a slave to institutional thinking. As some theologian once said, "Jesus didn't come to make us Christians. He came to make us fully human."
@@driz77 Though, it's funny how much of that language that you denounce here comes directly from the Gospels. Jesus himself talks about the saved and the damned many times, he even talks about throwing the damned into the fire (Mt 13:40-43, Mt 18:8-9, and so on). He tells us many times what his followers should believe and harbor (Mk 1:15, Mk 16:16, etc). He definitely doesn't want for his followers to forget the afterlife (Mt 16:26-28, and again Mt 18:8-9, and many more). He reminds them of "sin" lots of times (Mt 26:41, and once again, Mt 18:8-9, as well as many other verses). He commands people to fear God (Mt 10:28 and with all the many scary "eternal fire" cautions). He even builds a church in Mt 16:18, not without mentioning Hell once again. His disciples proceed to grow this Church and continue much of that same project that Jesus was doing...
So, I don't know, I think it would be safe to say that those people that you are denouncing might have read the Gospels one or two times. What I'm finding strange is your message, it's more difficult to find it there in the way that you put it. It almost seems like a different religion entirely, with a made up Jesus.
Amazing sense of humour! You are Fun!
Wonderful!
Haven’t listened yet but, why wouldn’t you edit out the first 21 minutes before uploading?
Hate evil, you who love the Lord,... (Psalms 97:10)
Why does a Catholic magazine name their lecture series after a Protestant Renaissance humanist?
Only two of those words are correctly applied to Erasmus - Renaissance humanist, yes; Protestant, no.
Begins 21:27.
Well that explains alot! ❤
" That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born? " Yeats.
Lord have mercy, it feels like it's coming; so close you hear/feel its breath.
Great talk Paul! Re Jesus admonition to "Resist not evil": Of course Jesus spent his life resisitng evil. So what did he mean? I think he meant "Do not use violence to resist evil". Do it with all the virtues Jesus taught us, love, forgiveness, humility etc. I also believe as Gandhi and others did, that we can/should use the tools of nonviolence.
Also I think you are wrong in saying that the issue has been a problem from the start of Christianity. I think Christians believed and practiced nonviolence for the first 300 years, and only abandoned an insistence on it with Constantine.
Why Augustine invented the Just War Theory I do not know. But I know it seems to contradict all that Jesus taught in this regard.
Augustine knew that wars happen and always will, because of our fallen nature of course.
Well he knew that all sorts of sin would happen (he had done a lot himself), but he did not formulate theories to water them down, so that ordinary Christians would be able to still be Christians while sinning. Jesus admonitions re killing your enemies are pretty clear I think.
Kingsnorth is a Christian that is a follower of Christ. I don't know what to think of all of his provocations. I sense a lot of tension from this lefty Orthodox, convert, royalist giving a presentation behind the First Things banner. God though gives the increase and raises up who he will. I don't know about 'civilization' but I can and will pray thy kingdom come.
I was concerned that the right wing seemed to be claiming PK as one of their own lately and wondered if that might be influencing him. I was glad that this talk alleviated those fears.
One prays he remains far, far from the progressive NWO left, though... As I know he will.
The international left are fake Christians - flagrant anti-Christians - willing to see the systematic perversion and indoctrination of children across the western world - the purposeful dumbing down of the populous - generation by generation - until humans become little more than useful fodder for the worldly rich... This vile agenda with all it's hoaxes piped into the minds of the imbecilic army of students, weak women and feminised men, is politicising fear, division, atheism/scientism and anger in order to fulfill the satanic leftist agenda of world control by secretive international elites.
The Bible tells us what is coming - and for a while it won't be pretty - but it will separate the real Christians from the cowards ...And as we know, God's Almighty victory is already won (waiting there in a future - still yet to transpire ) - for US, praise the Lord.
"US", that is, if we stay on the path to Salvation - in the emulation as best we can of His Righteousness.
So, even politics means little once one fully embraces Christ.
Obviously we can only vote for a political force more holy in its aspirations as best we can trust (freed from the constant brainwashing) - and that for many of us is clearly further right than left.
I am sure PK can see this well.
Abortion, War, Cutting up children, Increasing crime, the Woke agenda, Failure to bring back the death penalty for proven murderers, Failure to punish sexual perverts and thereby prevent future harm to innocents - etc, etc - these things are flagrantly against Christ and His Gospel.
So, I do hope that PK remains as much an outsider as I am - away from all screens and lies as far as possible - and basks in the joy of undertaking this "terrible" ordeal of being FREE as only a Christian can from this perishing world....
Hope this makes sense.
God Bless.
Beware of people who speak of cycles of history or try to predict the future.
21:30 intermission ends
Paul is amazing
He's the ultimate utilitarian convert. Jesus baptized all his views and declared them righteous.
In a sense, he admits to it at 1:00:55
I personally find myself disagreeing with his seeming hatred of civilization itself. Civilization is a mere tool, a crutch man uses in his fallen state. It is not inherently evil - it posesses villainy or holiness in so much as its participants are villains or saints. Civilizations rise and fall by the oscillating proportions of those people inside it.
I will say however that I absolutely agree with him on the wrong-headedness of "civilizational Christianity" as he described it, which has the civ coming before the Savior. Christ must always come first, and it horrifies me that someone would recognize the value of His teaching but not even try to take Him at His Word and worship Him as the God He proclaims Himself to be.
When I hear someone say they're a "cultural Christian" or that they want to bring back the faith even though they don't actually believe in it, on the one hand I'm happy they've gotten as far as they have in their striving toward God. On the other hand, I cringe and look at them as though they had spewed a putrid pile of scum-soaked socks out of their mouths. I pity them, I feel absolutely miserable for them. Hearing such a person grasp for God and miss so sorely is like watching a person lost at sea grab for a life preserver and then start eating it while saying "I'm saved! Now I won't starve to death!". Meanwhile the rescuer (Christ) is trying to pull in the line before the would-be-rescued person finishes eating it!
TL;DR: Civilization is not inherently evil, just a tool of admittedly fallen man, and he must worship God rather than his own culture. Anyone who tries to use God as a plow of "progress" for its own sake will find themselves sorely mistaken.
@@KnoxEmDownGood TLDR. Amen.
Interesting. My take-away was the exact opposite .... that institutional-political religion turned Jesus into a tool, a "utilitarian".
@@driz77 there is a gigantic, self flagellating political green movement in the UK. Degrowth, cities bad, noble pure indigenous spirituality, empire hating druid sympathizers. Much larger political green lobby than in the USA
As a Canadian I hold a lot of similar political positions to him or at least understand them. I've voted for the Green Party in the past.
The problem is Kingsnorth now sees all his former politics as the same message Jesus brings. That's a dangerous way to operate. His cause is now holy and conservatives are utilitarian even though he's equally harnessed Christ to a cause.
@@driz77 The people trying to use the Orthodox and the Heterodox Christians alike are nothing new - and in my personal opinion, the breed of our present century aren't even the best of the historical lot. It's almost silly how transparent our beloved moderns are about wanting the fruits of the Body of Christ without Her Head. One way or another, they'll find out no such separation will ever take place... No matter how hard they try.
May God grant them to see the truth before they try and squeeze the "civilization juice" out of us like we're oranges. Even if they do, they'll only help make saints.
Paul gets it.
For such a time as this.
Getting closer to Rudolf Steiner though not yet as comprehensive deep nor as accurate but getting there.
A bit harsh on Jordan Peterson.... he is slowly coming to Christ... but perhaps I won't hear the rest of this talk as it has frozen at 51:10.
Pray it unfreezes - a must listen right to the end, including the q& a
What's the name of the guy who cut his balls off because he didn't understand the teachings?
And.. if you have two
Most pastors and rabbis won't teach on this.
Luke 3:11-17 NKJV
[11] He answered and said to them, “He who has two tunics, let him give to him who has none; and he who has food, let him do likewise.” [12] Then tax collectors also came to be baptized, and said to him, “Teacher, what shall we do?” [13] And he said to them, “Collect no more than what is appointed for you.” [14] Likewise the soldiers asked him, saying, “And what shall we do?” So he said to them, “Do not intimidate anyone or accuse falsely, and be content with your wages.” [15] Now as the people were in expectation, and all reasoned in their hearts about John, whether he was the Christ or not, [16] John answered, saying to all, “I indeed baptize you with water; but One mightier than I is coming, whose sandal strap I am not worthy to loose. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. [17] His winnowing fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clean out His threshing floor, and gather the wheat into His barn; but the chaff He will burn with unquenchable fire.”
bible.com/bible/114/luk.3.11-17.NKJV
Buy a sword to defend yourself..
Luke 22:36-38 NKJV
[36] Then He said to them, “But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. [37] For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me: ‘And He was numbered with the transgressors.’ For the things concerning Me have an end.” [38] So they said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.” And He said to them, “It is enough.”
bible.com/bible/114/luk.22.36-38.NKJV
I think that perhaps Mr. Kingsnorth should have been a monk.
I'm sure he agrees, in many ways.
Riveting.
Exactly right, and I'm not even a Christian. God help me.
1:18:30 A wild Nicholas Kotar appears!
Kingsnorth makes some great points... however....many of the Bible quotes that he appeals to, to substantiate his criticism (which I agree with) are out of context, and misrepresent what Jesus actually meant by them. The premise of the Mosaic covenant was that Israel didn't have to concern themselves with the potential chaos, misfortune and evil of tomorrow, IF they were religiously obedient to God, because would providentially protect their land from invasion, and bless their agriculture so that they didn't need to amass wealth to offset circumstantial jeopardy. That is NOT the covenant agreement that New Covenant Church believers have with God today. Jesus could send His disciples out without money or even a change of clothes because it was Jewish religious Law that a Jew MUST help a fellow Jew when travelling, or incur God's wrath. Missionary ministries cannot anticipate the same theological economy today. The Apostle Paul worked to fund his own ministry. Kingsnorth, like many other socially left leaning people see a symmetry of principles in these quotations of Jesus, which in their original context, do not exist, or do not allow the same application as left leaning utopians would like. The Bible is explicitly clear that amassing wealth is not a 'way of life' for a Christian, but the idea we should, or even could, in a fallen world, all live like hermits, or as if we are in a Christian commune is overly idealistic, forcing political ambition upon the Bible, and theologically naive, at best, practically dangerous and presumptuous at worse. We live in a fallen world, Christianity is NOT a society founding faith because it is a POLEMIC against this fallen age/world.
yes, i think kingsnorth is as guilty as JBP in making Christianity in his image - it's just lucky that his image sounds a lot more pious than JBP's. If you put the two together, you get just the start the breadth of the actual Bible story. Notice no mention of God taking Moses OUT of the wilderness and making a people, the gloss on the Book of Judges, failure to talk about David or Solomon, no mention of revelation.
also the GARDEN of Eden is a walled garden - not the wilderness and you cannot really understand most of the OT with the framework given here.
"Until the content of a belief is made clear, the appeal to accept the belief on faith is beside the point, for one would not know what one has accepted. The request for the meaning of a religious belief is logically prior to the question of accepting that belief on faith or to the question of whether that belief constitutes knowledge."
Smith, George H.. Atheism: The Case Against God (The Skeptic's Bookshelf) (p. 30). Globe Pequot. Kindle Edition.
A relationship with the living God gives you a clear logical and reasonable mind. I wasn't the most logical or reasonable person until I had my mind cleaned by baptism and a relationship with the living God.
@ which God is that?
Paul was already anti-civ before he converted. So he's also adjusting Christianity to his Christian anti-civilization.
Can someone explain how does JBP can make five series on judeochristian values as the west foundations and not once did he talk about the return of Christ as king, savior and judge. I mean is christ return also a metaphorical truth? A journey of events? A one man show or litteraly the end of suffering for this specie???