Fashion and Popularity

Like anything in society, beliefs are colored by fashion and popularity. As fashions come and go, Christianity's popularity rises and falls. In one time and place, Christianity was a major pillar of society. In another, Christianity was a fringe element, maybe persecuted. In a third, Christianity was merely one of the belief systems in the group. In the time and place where I am, and on the web sites I frequent, I personally have noticed an increasing level of anti-Christian sentiment (according to the blog charter that is the reason this blog exists).

In my opinion, one of the factors in anti-Christian sentiment is the penalty of (past, if not present) success: whenever anything becomes well-known, it becomes a prominent target. And the perceived strength of a target makes it all the more fashionable to denigrate, because beating up on the "little guy" is universally regarded as cowardly and sadistic. Longevity is also a potential black mark, because more time in existence implies a greater chance of some scandal appearing at some time (US presidential candidates have potentially more to fear from their past than someone running for junior-high class president). In other words, the surprising thing would be if people never attacked Christianity in the same way they attack Wal-Mart, Microsoft, PayPal, eBay, etc. My point is not whether the attacks are justified, but that the attacks are expected. If you want to mock a god or religion in the US, the simple fact is that the most fashionable mark is Christianity.

Another clear factor in the modern use of fashions and popularity is impressive communication and information capabilities. Communication and information are electrified, communicated to masses all at once, and through the network neutrality of the Internet, even the most insignificant of individuals can be heard. This is a marvelous time. However, the sheer quantity of the information, as well as its audio-visual nature, results in an environment both with an astoundingly short attention span and impatience with any information's actual context. In short, it's easier than ever to be a muckraker for any entity. It's easier to find the incriminating sound bite or factoid, easier to show it to large numbers of people, and easier to present it out of context for maximum effect. And, once it's out in the information echo chamber, it can take on a life of its own.

As others have observed, the modern wealth of communication and information choices means not only that one group can more easily demonize another group, but that one group can completely ignore what other groups are saying. So the "Us and Them" mentality of idealogical isolation is always reinforced, never challenged. Aggressive atheists can continue indefinitely to tell each other that Christians are superstitious morons with anachronistic moral ideals, while aggressive Christians can continue indefinitely to tell each other that atheists are amoral infidels who think unstoppable science has anointed men as gods. Blech, the thought of that unending divide makes me sick.

No wonder that people can be so jaded, no wonder that they find it naive to hope for the best about anything. In fact, some web sites I've seen appear to treat jadedness as a lifestyle. "Someone yell out a subject, any subject, and I'll make a sardonic joke about it". Comic strips, TV shows, movies, politics (naturally), no matter the content, it will be cut down to size. In some sense, this flippant attitude isn't anything new; acting as if you see through everything and everyone is perpetually fashionable because no one wants to take the chance of being thought a fool. It may be fashionable, but it's an awful, nihilistic lifestyle. If all one does is destroy, through sick humor, any ideal he or she sees, then that person has every right to be depressed. Or, perhaps, one could respond to the emptiness of his/her crusade against everything by giving up all soulful pursuits and seeking cheap, selfish pleasure like an ignoble animal.

I like to think most people are not that far gone, however. My impression of the emergent attitude of my society, its zeitgeist, is something different. I feel that it has morality and conscience, some of it inherited from past times. The prevailing morality consists of a few simplistic, unreflective sentiments. Love without personal sacrifice or commitment. Individual freedom that only excludes actions which might lower someone's comfort level - such as having the gall to say someone is wrong. Contempt for the snobby intellectual elite, but a contradictory trust in (applied, not pure) scientific pursuits. Enjoyment of technology and progress, but also a fascination with exotic solutions of the past. Snide rejection of organized religious doctrine but also a fascination with nonreligious supernatural elements like ghosts and monsters.

Christianity's completeness means that some parts of it are fashionable, and some can't be. I suspect some "Christians" just believe the fashionable parts, and ignore the unfashionable. Fashionable "Christianity" therefore has forgiveness without sin, heaven without hell, self-centered church attendance without strings attached, implicit disdain for tradition in the name of progress, theological knowledge overlooked in favor of "applicable" truths. At one time some church officials sold "indulgences" to motivate people to give - the indulgences meant that givers couldn't complain about not receiving their money's worth. I wonder if that practice is so different from each time in the modern day that Christianity is watered-down to be more popular. It must remain relevant, but not at the cost of becoming what it isn't. Like any major religion, Christianity isn't homogeneous now or ever - it has had its own internal fashions, and those fashions may originate from the pressure of fashions in society at large. Each encounter between Christianity and society is a potential forking point between the Christians who are compromisers and the Christians who are devotees.

To the devotee, even more to the martyr, popularity hardly matters, because it is fleeting. Someone whose beliefs are tied up in popularity is someone whose beliefs shift when the wind changes. Surely, beliefs should change over time, but as more learning and experience inform the believer, not as fashions sweep away whatever bits are unpopular. Critical thinking is for examining new ideas, throwing out the bad, and keeping the good. Critical thinkers don't accept an idea out of repetition or novelty, but they also don't reflexively reject new ideas. Someone's beliefs should be a continually-polished anchor to him or her in a tumultuous, fallen world.