I remember this one guy who was always on about self-denial and not doing things for show saying something to the effect of "Blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the Kingdom of God." But, I don't know. Talking like that got Him killed.
First of all, I'm in this post and I don't like it.
Second of all, you're also really nailing for me something I've been struggling to name specifically about the mimetic theory circles On Here (Burgis, et al.). Those have a similar feeling to me: "Recognize that all your desires are downstream of influence so that you can choose your influences and optimize your desires!" That is... not the core lesson of mimetic theory, as I understand it.
And that might not even be fair to someone like Burgis, who's written as much that seems to depart from that ethos as he has things that seem to support it. In any case, I common error seems like it has to do with asserting we have control in areas where we really don't, and then layering personal/spiritual practices on top of that error.
I get wariness around status, and I even agree that Renn's three world hypothesis is somewhat underdetermined (Alastair Roberts has offered the best sympathetic criticism so far), but I don't quite recognize Renn's arguments in your critique. I thought it was clear that he believes status is not an ultimate good or even all that good, but mostly instrumental. On Renn's view then, humility is not definitionally in opposition to "status", but would be an important consideration regarding motives. I see an NT example in St. Paul, who successfully navigated Roman status-obsessed honor hierarchies to great effect, yet his life was one of humility (at least as Keller defined the term).
Would you disagree with the idea that making the most of the opportunities you have to serve requires recognizing the structures in which those opportunities exist? This is what I took to be the point of Renn's piece, and so I find it consistent with the concerns of OT wisdom literature, where the contours of life are bounded by relational and structural constraints (extended family, neighbors, the politics of the monarchy) and learning to navigate them requires both shrewdness and humility.
The key distinction between the examples that you name with respect to the social structures, and the ones that rename is that yours are natural, and his are entirely artificial. So, one winds up subjecting natural goods to unnatural ones, seeking out the unnatural avenues which increasingly shape and artificially dictate the nature of natural ones. This is how he describes the operations of status.
He supposes that humility is compatible with this kind of approach to status, but I think this is where he is not Augustinian enough. He supposes that humility is a matter of self assessment where Augustine would say that our self assessments are themselves frequently mistaken, that we can pursue ends for reasons other than the ones self stated.
This was my take, and comports with my personal struggle. It's one thing to *achieve* status -- or rather, to stumble upon it -- and have to navigate that new status with humility. In which case, not taking responsibility and looking for a way out from under one's newfound influence might be tantamount to burying one's talents. But to *actively seek* status as somehow a justifier of or permission to pursue excellence (my instinctive mistake; "Once I get X000 followers, it'll finally be worth it for me to write the thing!) is an ethical and spiritual disaster waiting to happen.
The natural/unnatural distinction seems important, but I cannot see it (this is not to say I reject it, only that it's not clear to me yet). What renders Paul's activities within a Roman status hierarchy "natural" whereas a Christian student choosing to navigate secular American status games is considered "unnatural"? What is the principled difference here?
1) Is Paul seeking to climb the status ladder, or is he making use of it as it finds him? This gets into @Lyle Enright’s comment, which I think gets us to the heart here.
2) By “natural”, I mean something like a form of life arising out of the conditions in which social arrangements informally work, but rooted in something non-contractual: family structures, neighbors, agoras, etc. The artificial examples of publishing mechanisms, etc. are those artifices which constrain and remake how these ordinary relations work, and how they are described. Social media, IOW, is an unreal and artificial construct which has real effects in how ordinary relationships are conducted.
Yes, something about this article seemed fishily not-Christian. I noticed that reading it left me feeling insecure about my own status. It wouldn’t be surprising if others reacted similarly. If that’s the effect your message is having, it might not be doing what you think you intend it to do.
I wonder how this fits with his concept of strivers, which I thought he presented in a pretty negative light? I haven't had time to read his piece closely, but he doesn't mention striving there. https://x.com/aaron_renn/status/1775566106154926297
Interesting. It seems to me that he attributes a good version of striving to the ladder climber here, provided that they are seeking to shape the world for good and not out of selfish ambition. This most recent addition, he is also decidedly more negative about those that, decide to not embrace a ladder, or embrace a middle-class existence.
Yeah, I'll have to give it a more careful read, as I was thinking of writing something engaging his striver profile. He does call it a legitimate way to live in that tweet, so maybe it's not so much of a shift, idk.
I remember this one guy who was always on about self-denial and not doing things for show saying something to the effect of "Blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the Kingdom of God." But, I don't know. Talking like that got Him killed.
First of all, I'm in this post and I don't like it.
Second of all, you're also really nailing for me something I've been struggling to name specifically about the mimetic theory circles On Here (Burgis, et al.). Those have a similar feeling to me: "Recognize that all your desires are downstream of influence so that you can choose your influences and optimize your desires!" That is... not the core lesson of mimetic theory, as I understand it.
And that might not even be fair to someone like Burgis, who's written as much that seems to depart from that ethos as he has things that seem to support it. In any case, I common error seems like it has to do with asserting we have control in areas where we really don't, and then layering personal/spiritual practices on top of that error.
(Also I threw in my vote for "What Can A Body Do?" because I'm dying to see how it does/doesn't compare alongside Agamben's "The Use of Bodies".)
Kierkegaard approves of this message!
Also, a reference to Katherine Sonderegger!? Wow! I meet her years ago at seminary, a truly brilliant theologian! (excellence unknown to the masses).
Thanks—forgot to link it, but this is from her systematics, vol 1. It’s terrific!
Oh, I've read it. It's an excellent work.
I get wariness around status, and I even agree that Renn's three world hypothesis is somewhat underdetermined (Alastair Roberts has offered the best sympathetic criticism so far), but I don't quite recognize Renn's arguments in your critique. I thought it was clear that he believes status is not an ultimate good or even all that good, but mostly instrumental. On Renn's view then, humility is not definitionally in opposition to "status", but would be an important consideration regarding motives. I see an NT example in St. Paul, who successfully navigated Roman status-obsessed honor hierarchies to great effect, yet his life was one of humility (at least as Keller defined the term).
Would you disagree with the idea that making the most of the opportunities you have to serve requires recognizing the structures in which those opportunities exist? This is what I took to be the point of Renn's piece, and so I find it consistent with the concerns of OT wisdom literature, where the contours of life are bounded by relational and structural constraints (extended family, neighbors, the politics of the monarchy) and learning to navigate them requires both shrewdness and humility.
The key distinction between the examples that you name with respect to the social structures, and the ones that rename is that yours are natural, and his are entirely artificial. So, one winds up subjecting natural goods to unnatural ones, seeking out the unnatural avenues which increasingly shape and artificially dictate the nature of natural ones. This is how he describes the operations of status.
He supposes that humility is compatible with this kind of approach to status, but I think this is where he is not Augustinian enough. He supposes that humility is a matter of self assessment where Augustine would say that our self assessments are themselves frequently mistaken, that we can pursue ends for reasons other than the ones self stated.
This was my take, and comports with my personal struggle. It's one thing to *achieve* status -- or rather, to stumble upon it -- and have to navigate that new status with humility. In which case, not taking responsibility and looking for a way out from under one's newfound influence might be tantamount to burying one's talents. But to *actively seek* status as somehow a justifier of or permission to pursue excellence (my instinctive mistake; "Once I get X000 followers, it'll finally be worth it for me to write the thing!) is an ethical and spiritual disaster waiting to happen.
The natural/unnatural distinction seems important, but I cannot see it (this is not to say I reject it, only that it's not clear to me yet). What renders Paul's activities within a Roman status hierarchy "natural" whereas a Christian student choosing to navigate secular American status games is considered "unnatural"? What is the principled difference here?
Two things seem to be operative here:
1) Is Paul seeking to climb the status ladder, or is he making use of it as it finds him? This gets into @Lyle Enright’s comment, which I think gets us to the heart here.
2) By “natural”, I mean something like a form of life arising out of the conditions in which social arrangements informally work, but rooted in something non-contractual: family structures, neighbors, agoras, etc. The artificial examples of publishing mechanisms, etc. are those artifices which constrain and remake how these ordinary relations work, and how they are described. Social media, IOW, is an unreal and artificial construct which has real effects in how ordinary relationships are conducted.
I appreciate the response. Thanks for taking the time to make it!
Thanks for engaging so well. It’s how we all tease out important things!
Yes, something about this article seemed fishily not-Christian. I noticed that reading it left me feeling insecure about my own status. It wouldn’t be surprising if others reacted similarly. If that’s the effect your message is having, it might not be doing what you think you intend it to do.
I wonder how this fits with his concept of strivers, which I thought he presented in a pretty negative light? I haven't had time to read his piece closely, but he doesn't mention striving there. https://x.com/aaron_renn/status/1775566106154926297
Interesting. It seems to me that he attributes a good version of striving to the ladder climber here, provided that they are seeking to shape the world for good and not out of selfish ambition. This most recent addition, he is also decidedly more negative about those that, decide to not embrace a ladder, or embrace a middle-class existence.
Yeah, I'll have to give it a more careful read, as I was thinking of writing something engaging his striver profile. He does call it a legitimate way to live in that tweet, so maybe it's not so much of a shift, idk.