The phrase “extinction rebellion” caught my attention in this BBC article about religions and their (according to the article) demises or transformations.
At first I leaped to a wrong association for the words … thinking them to be a nicely applicable reference to fringe movements (life flat-earth) that refuse to go away, and in fact may thrive on (and perhaps only because of) their very fringe nature. I was quickly reminded as I read on that actually the phrase is applied to the climate change movement that seeks to corral us all into more environmentally-caring lifestyles.
Even so, there could be interesting discussion to be had in both of those directions.
Coming back to the central thesis of the linked article, though; it seems to suffer from the same long-standing prejudice that nothing significant about any religions could possibly be long-enduring (except [possibly] our propensity to seek religion), and that religious evolution and transformation must surely be signs of inauthenticity and probable demise. But the author does at least acknowledge an apparent spiritual / social thirst we all have that seeks community and that drives many to seek it, even if they are taking pains to turn away from any religious trappings deemed too old or traditional.
I was reminded of the Rubin Report interview of a priest and Jewish Rabbi where the phrase “cut-flower” ethics first came to my attention. People can have fun with secular churches or spaghetti monster communities and such, but how much life-transformation, and beyond that: generational transformation will such a thing cultivate. In short … how “sticky” will it be to borrow the phrase from the article that rightly asks these questions. And perhaps it will help our culture get off its “one completely right - everything else completely wrong” incoherence that still plagues so many otherwise-intelligent nones today?