The Purpose and Necessity of Culture
Вставка
- Опубліковано 21 лип 2024
- Our website: www.justandsinner.org
This video is a brief summary of Matthew Arnold's ideas about culture in his book Culture and Anarchy. He helps to define what the purpose of culture is in an era that is obsessed with money and production.
This is why we gotta retake the mainline church. They're the historic beautiful Christian institutions
I thought about this when considering the difference between the Episcopal Church and the ACNA.
Whatever can be said about the theology of the former, it is undeniable that the Episcopal Church (even just symbolically) has staying power in a way that can not be competed with numbers/doctrinal faithfulness. A permanent residence in historical/cultural consciousness.
Europe may be filled with empty cathedrals, but they're still there, AND they continue to fuel cultural imagination (long after they've stopped fueling saving faith).
That and beautify the church we're at
@Ⲉvⲁⲛgⲉlⲓⲥⲁl Ⲥⲁⲧⲏⲟlⲓⲥ Eh. As part of the ACNA, remember that a ton of our parishes and churches *were* former episcopal churches. Our bishops were freshly constituted under African bishops who have the line of succession through England. So why is our province any less historic? We are the Reformed catholic line descended from the English church, reconstituted by those who preserved that tradition in various African countries.
@@vngelicath1580 I went to a midnight mass at an Episcopal church last Christmas Eve. The priest was a woman, and she kept making a bunch of pop-culture references.
I know someone who is going to seminary school right now to be involved in the Episcopalian church, and he is a self-proclaimed atheist.
Also, I've seen videos of drag shows happening at Episcopal churches.
What is going on here? Is the Episcopalian church a lost cause?
Thank you, Dr. Cooper.
If you want culture, begin making the things that your community consumes.
This will require traditional living and traditional family structures, however.
no it won't. if you live in the city, and your community consumes art, you dont need a family to create art.
if you live in the country and you want to start a farm for your community to consume food, you dont need a wife and kids to own a farm. farms can be a community operation. biological family isn't the only way to define community.
@@maxonmendel5757 Tell me you've never worked on a farm without saying you've never worked on a farm.
@@maxonmendel5757 that may work for a “community garden” but certainly not for a real farm. There is a reason the vast majority of hippy communes collapse and those that did manage to have a working farm ended up not being hippy communes.
Sure you can create art and marry yourself to the church as Saint Paul did but understand that the only value in that is the influence on the children raised by the families. Without families what you build will be referred to as “ruins” in 50 years.
@@nemoexnuqual3643 im just wary of people saying "traditional family structures" cause usually they're looking at the 1950s heteronormative suburban single family house as "traditional" and I dont think thats far back enough.
I would like to expect "traditional" to mean multi-generational extended families, and even families that include people who aren't biologically related, and include people who are unable to have their own children. In my experience thats just not what people usually mean when they say "traditional", but I think it should be. The Church in Acts full of celibate people who called one another "brothers and sisters" and that "hippy commune" ended up becoming the largest and longest-lasting institution in history.
and get a grip. science exists. the church is going to have to face the reality of birth control and IV or surrogate fertilization without just saying, "its an abomination". that stuff isn't going away and the church will soon have to figure out how to deal with it. All im saying is biology =/= family.
@@maxonmendel5757 “heteronormative” is the most basic biblical description of a family. Extended families were closer sure, but it was a nuclear family that was Gods design from the start. Where a man leaves his father and mother and takes a wife. Otherwise it’s awfully hard to go fourth and multiply.
You say you want to go back before the 1950’s. Ok how about 6000 BC when a heteronormative family lived in a tent. The dad worked the fields, hunted, and went to war while the mom raised the kids and ground wheat into flour.
It is the natural order of things as God intended.
More on culture, please!
We're having discussions about this in our local church, where our elders have more of a proclivity toward modernist/postmodernist habit. How can those who wish for these things be faithful to their local body while expressing these concerns (and living them)?
"use institutions" sounds terribly Stalinist..
I think the heart of this video is really good. im not coming at you personally. you have a good idea. ive been following you for awhile. im the guy who told Pageau to interview you. you have awesome videos. I think the conversation you're having is a little polemical though. youre speaking into an echo chamber sometimes, as happens online.
I think its vital to view modern government as an institution, even what you might think of as beaureaucratic or progressive institutions. it may or may not be a big tragedy, but the reality is that the Enlightenment permanently separated the church from the state.
maybe one division between leftists and rightists is what we consider to be the primary institution for lasting welfare (plainly, which institutions do we recognize as being the ones to feed the poor and take care of the widow.)
the Catholic Church was the primary institution and I think in most ways it still excels at fulfilling the social contract between The People and the Institution.
Protestantism tried and has failed to democratize religion. finally, the Enlightenment and the American and French revolutions democratized the government. (Marx's prescription now is to democratize the markets away from the capitalist ruling class, btw)
So.
on the right we have conservatives demanding the church maintain power as the primary cultural institution, even if its not democratic, because of tradition. and the left demands the state be the primary cultural institution specifically because its supposed to be democratic.
Maybe the English model of having a crowned royal ruler also be the head of church, but only as a figurehead, while the real business is done by the state, is a "fitting" compromise.
I dont even know what to make of Europe with the Vatican being both small and rich and powerful, while most of Europe is agnostic or Protestant, especially in philosophy.
but my key point is that, based on the Constitution of the USA, the Church (catholic, Lutheran, or otherwise) cannot ever function as the primary institution on a general scale beyond the community level. The American government is a secular institution. Yet being so, the hope is that it is still able to fulfill its role as the primary institution, as described in the Preamble. and this is where the social contract and revolutionary ideology becomes important: if American fails her role as the institution, armed revolution is what the Bill of Rights calls for. I think most libertarians would agree, but only a progressive marxist would actually go along with that in practice, because only those types are interested in holding the government accountable, because only those types value the government per se as the institution.
conservatives, especially where im from, have this awful attitude of "yeah we the people are angry, Revolution lets go!!" but then George Floyd is murdered, causing riots, and the 1776ers suddenly say, "wait, no, not like that!"
as a thinker, try to consider the secular institutions not as a contradiction of the church, but as having grabbed the baton from the state in 1776.
and investigate what real modern Marxists are saying today. most modern leftists are leninists or maoists or something else. Orthodox Marxism isn't a real movement anymore.
I disagree that he is "speaking in an echo chamber". It seems perhaps you've misunderstood or failed to recognize what Dr. Cooper is doing here in this video. Of course not all of his videos are directed to young men in particular, but he does specifically mention young men at the beginning of this video. Furthermore, this particular video is to be understood in connection with his other videos on high culture and beauty. Dr. Cooper is not providing an in-depth critique, but rather providing some form of guidance and education, which we can then explore and study further. As I see it, at a time when people, especially young people, spend increasingly more time online and on social media, he is showing himself to be a counterbalance if you will who values the eternal, as opposed to the "influencers" most young people are familiar with who promote the temporary.
@@solochristo491 i dont see Cooper interacting much with people outside of the religious right, and I dont imagine he has a lot of atheist leftists watching any of his videos. thats what I meant by echo chamber
Do you homeschool? Do you have any tips for that? Maybe resources or recommendations?
God bless you
The doctrine of vocation puts a lot of these issues in perspective.
Dr. Cooper, you mentioned culture having a telos, I was wondering if you have any thoughts about any culture surviving the judgement and making it into the new heavens and the new earth. Is it all bad and we should assume it will all be burned or is there some good that will be preserved as they are products of faith in Christ? Is Rev 21:24 possibly hinting at this?
I don't know for sure, but it is my belief that what is good in creation will exist past final judgment. It seems most consistent with God's character and the nature of redemption.
Ultimately, people don't want money per se. They want power. If I can do anything that pleases me, and what pleases me is to have power over you, than society has an issue!
this is why we need to arm the homeless.
@@maxonmendel5757 complete non-sequitur.
A pity that Mr. Arnold is not better known about in academia. Probably because he doesn't sound as "exciting" because he didn't scream about revolution the way Marx did (and it sounds like he was a far more intellectual individual as well)
Roger Scruton really made a very important point in that what drives or animates the left is mostly the excitement of change, that there is something different that could have been and may as well be.
The scripturally based church is the cornerstone of any culture that can be called good.
I make this distinction because of the false teachings of so many churches, those that do not see the Bible as the infallible word of God, are worthless and hollow. They remove scriptures they don’t like (especially Saint Paul) until there is nothing left of the scriptures and they create their own rudderless and rootless “churches” that serve only themselves.
Money, Power, Weapons, capitalism. That moves the World. And America. In economical neoliberalism, that ideias on the vídeo is a death setence.
we need to nationalize the banks and get rid of the military industrial complex, tbh
@@maxonmendel5757 nationalize the banks???? O dear Lord...
Child labor is good though, it was standard for all of human history until industrialization when working conditions became hellish. Working conditions have improved in safety since then so we should bring back child labor
this is a really bad take. I hope you are trolling.
@@maxonmendel5757 depending on the field I think certain trades are acceptable to have middle school apprenticeships which are paid. The apprenticeships would have stricter regulations than for high-school graduates. It's very inconsistent to think middle schoolers can be trusted to be trained with deadly electric tools in shop class but can't be paid to use them on a job site.
the industrial revolution and its consequences have been a disaster
Say what you will about Charles III and the American relation to that office... but it will be a sad day for ALL cultural conservatives when England abolishes that ancient and religious symbol.
Do you think this is important because it leads to conversion? I think convert the people within society and whatever comes out of that whether old or new will be true good and beautiful. I dont see how a traditional culture in and of itself is good, or why traditional society is the only true good and beautiful society. We could have a resurgence of Christianity and society could look entirely different perhaps more true good and beautiful
A culture of biblical values is a biblical culture. This tends to be similar to the older cultural norms, especially the core values. Traditional marriage, traditional family, an emphasis on virtue being associated with value.
What parts of new culture do you see as good, productive, and biblically sound?
Now let’s back up. Do you believe that Jesus is the only way to God, that he died for you sins and on the third day rose from the dead? Do you believe 2 Timothy that every word of scripture is God Breathed? Do you believe that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever?
If your answer to any of these questions is not yes then you can never really understand what is good and beautiful.
@@nemoexnuqual3643 oh I dont mean I see value in the current culture. I just mean I can imagine a new culture beyond the current culture which is true, good, and beautiful in a different way than traditional culture was.
Yes, I am a devout catholic who believes every word in the catechism.
I think a distinction should be made between values and culture. Culture is built upon values. So I absolutely want to see a return to biblical values, but I think biblical values can be expressed in culture (ie art, rituals, etiquette, language, media, traditions etc.) In a different way than it was in the past. For example, I think modern art can be Christian and done beautifully.
The best example I can think of is the album Texas-Jerusalem Crossroads by Lift to Experience. It takes many elements of modern culture post-rock, shoegaze, country, music wise, but also in the themes it has a heavy focus on the existential and absurd it has a heavy use of irony and juxtaposition, individualism, introspection etc. I think it's better than anything Bach composed and Christian through and through.
Salvador Dali is another example, although the real value of his art is questionable it shows how Christian art can be modern and truly Christian and beautiful.
Outside of art etiquette and clothing are really easy examples. We can change what is considered proper behavior in certain social settings with a basis in Christian values, or what clothing is considered formal.
But even something like the family. We can take the Christian values of a complementarianist, heterosexual, monogamous, modest, marriage with many kids but I see nothing wrong with having care of the kids be a communal responsibility instead of the traditional ideal of the stay at home mom caring for and educating the kids.
Traditional culture is a baptism of hellenic culture, theres no reason we cant baptism many modern cultural elements or create a new culture of our own built on christian values, and I think the focus on restoring culture is misplaced the focus should be on converting souls, having those converted souls adopt Christian values, and embracing whichever culture flows from that. I think an emphasis on culture in this way restricts a more natural Christian culture which may develop, and may act as a barrier to conversion, or at least a limitation of means to conversion. At this point society has a dialectical aversion to traditional culture theres no need to lump Christianity with a traditional culture that people may be adverse to. It's also restrictive of how the beauty of God can be expressed. Texas Jerusalem Crossroads expressing element of Christian truth which were under expressed in the past like the tension and despair in accepting the cross on an individual level through the use of ironic juxtaposition and absurd imagery. Instead of demeaning this aspect of culture as untraditional we should embrace it is an evolution of culture, both a baptism of modernism and a legitimate creation of new cultural expression
@@pat1442 First off please go read Romans 1:16-32 and reconsider your position.
The Bible is not just true it is truth. It is the truth by which all other truth is measured.
What is the biblical model for the family? I want that.
How does the Bible view modesty? I want that.
What is the biblical view on marriage? I want that.
Of course some things can be new, we can wear boots instead and of sandals but in order for a culture to be good it must be built upon the basic cultural foundations of God and scripture.
The most fundamental reality of Christianity is that people are at our core wicked, self serving, and evil. The Bible says the heart is a deceiver and the wisdom of man is foolishness to God. Sure our culture can incorporate new technologies but that core must be biblical.
Some of your ideas we already see in microcosm, such as community child raising. Day care and public schools are the analogies and they have kids so far from reality they believe God made a mistake in assigning them genitals. They are being taught to turn Christian parents in as abusive for not medically altering the bodies of 5 year olds.
Schools are teaching kids to be pro-abortion, atheistic, communists. That is what “community parenting” has got us.
Look at cultural norms for marriage. Instead of a traditional marriage of one man one woman with the man being the head women now initiate 3/4 of divorces and men aren’t getting married at all due to the sexual revolution and it’s destructive teachings.
@@nemoexnuqual3643 I dont see how saying it's okay for culture to change, and it may be better for it to change is being ashamed of the gospel or calling down the wrath of God. Yeah pagan culture is worthy of God's wrath, but a Christian culture different than the one we had previously doesnt.
When I say that communal care and education of children could be an example of Christian culture different from the traditional culture I dont mean I dont mean send our kids to the grooming and athiest indoctrination centers we have now so they can learn how to blaspheme and be transvestites. I mean communal care and education with Christian values. There is nothing inherently unbiblical about the pious elderly women adopting the community role of assisting in the care and education of kids. Perhaps that would be a good thing.
Here's three reasons it's okay to be open to a change in culture.
1. We have freedom in Christ in our actions which are not sinful.
2. God's will for what culture should look like can be different in different times and circumstances.
3. Traditional culture could have been an imperfect culture with room for improvement.
Here are reasons we should be open to cultural change
1. Creativity creates beauty, restriction of expression to traditional forms limits expression of beauty
2. Demanding consistent culture can limit evangelization to a society adverse to those cultural norms (norms not values)
3. Traditional cultural norms may not be practical or ideal for current circumstances. For example industrialization may require a new cultural stance to work, and family structure. Or the internet may require forming new cultural standards for life with the internet instead of the common traditionalist position of trying to minimizes use of the internet. Or the circumstances of life may result in a more introspective existential zeitgeist which should be expressed in art.
I am not a modernist in the typical sense. I feel like you are associated the two. I detest gender ideology, sodomy, divorce, contraception, usury, atheism, all other religions, individualism, materialism, consumerism, marxism, etc. But have no problem with modern art, clothing, etiquette, societal structure etc. As long as it abhors those sins and is thoroughly Christian.
@@nemoexnuqual3643 the album I mentioned is a great example. Jordan would say this album is not a good cultural expression because it does not conform to the traditional cultural standards of music like precise technique, harmony, composition, etc. And the themes are existential, ironic, absurd, introspective etc. Instead of being traditionally subject focused, objective, transcendent, etc.
I think marx's critique is a reflection about man's life before the industrial revolution. I dont think its fair to say marxism is exclusively progressive and doesn't look backward at all. that ignores the principle of historical dialectics, which is the oil that runs the motor of marxism. marxism is an obsession with the past
Marxism is at its core wrong. It is built upon covetous behavior and pursues equity over equality which destroys the goals and drives of man by exalting the government to the point of a de-facto god.
Capitalism is the natural state of the world and fits with Christianity. Having money taken is not a tithe, being robbed is not giving alms.
Yes there is inequality of outcome, but look at cultures without a significant wage gap, they all have something in common, abject poverty.
Instead let’s look at the biblical model, let each man work for his bread, give freely with a glad heart, reject the love of money which is idolatry. Under this basic capitalist model you reap the rewards of your work and you decide based on your faith to help others.
Consider the church run food bank vs the food stamp program. The food bank will feed a hungry person today and often has resources to help a person get a job, the food stamps program will feed you in a month and is set up to make it difficult to ever get off food stamps.
Which is more beneficial?