In my view, there are two mechanisms that could explain the endurance of Christianity in the face of changing social norms and cosmovision.
The first mechanism is not that different from other religions: tradition. Lots of people find relief in replicating what their parents and close persons rely upon. Lots of people feel comfortable and confident in institutions with a long history, a clearly defined hierarchy, and, more or less, clear norms.
The second mechanism is the intervention of the Holy Spirit, that constantly encourages the weak and the frustrated hearts of Christians and leads them to put their eyes on Jesus.
I know little of Chesterton, but I presume he somehow valued more the first mechanism...
Reading your comment reminded me of a thought I had about a month ago. I found myself in a quiet Socratic dialogue, asking why I’m more comfortable remaining Catholic. Having been born into a Catholic family, I kept asking what makes me stay?
I realized that one core reason is it has doctrine, hierarchy and norms that are not negotiable at whim. It stands tall and undeterred when everything else collapses. It stands in truth regardless of human presence. I find that profoundly relieving. When everything falls, you need something that anchors you and allows you to keep moving forward.
And I think, its stability attracts people in times of chaos. Psychologically, it provides orientation. Maybe that’s also why they’re still here 🤔
We may be able to see Islam under a similar lens but Hinduism, although it has survived millennia, has not seeped beyond a few cultures and regions. Probably because, as Chesterton points out, it is important if an idea wants to survive, to adapt to social forms and artistic expressions beyond a certain culture. Hinduism demanded uniformity of expression and hence, could not spread with the same vigorousness that Christianity did.
Thanks!! nice article.
In my view, there are two mechanisms that could explain the endurance of Christianity in the face of changing social norms and cosmovision.
The first mechanism is not that different from other religions: tradition. Lots of people find relief in replicating what their parents and close persons rely upon. Lots of people feel comfortable and confident in institutions with a long history, a clearly defined hierarchy, and, more or less, clear norms.
The second mechanism is the intervention of the Holy Spirit, that constantly encourages the weak and the frustrated hearts of Christians and leads them to put their eyes on Jesus.
I know little of Chesterton, but I presume he somehow valued more the first mechanism...
Reading your comment reminded me of a thought I had about a month ago. I found myself in a quiet Socratic dialogue, asking why I’m more comfortable remaining Catholic. Having been born into a Catholic family, I kept asking what makes me stay?
I realized that one core reason is it has doctrine, hierarchy and norms that are not negotiable at whim. It stands tall and undeterred when everything else collapses. It stands in truth regardless of human presence. I find that profoundly relieving. When everything falls, you need something that anchors you and allows you to keep moving forward.
And I think, its stability attracts people in times of chaos. Psychologically, it provides orientation. Maybe that’s also why they’re still here 🤔
We may be able to see Islam under a similar lens but Hinduism, although it has survived millennia, has not seeped beyond a few cultures and regions. Probably because, as Chesterton points out, it is important if an idea wants to survive, to adapt to social forms and artistic expressions beyond a certain culture. Hinduism demanded uniformity of expression and hence, could not spread with the same vigorousness that Christianity did.
Does the author examine why Islam or Hinduism have continued for so long? What is it that's unique about Christianity vs other long time religions?
ываыа
vsdfsf
wer
1
vvv
cool
лло
лол
сщщд
oo
cool
nice
cool