A closer look at Jonathan VanAntwerpen and his public academic footprint

[Emily Carter]

I see it as a platform that aged into its niche. The early years were about creating space; now it’s about maintaining depth. Founder profiles usually don’t show that lifecycle very well.

 

[smith chandler]

Jonathan VanAntwerpen’s influence is probably better understood within academic and intellectual circles than in the broader public sphere. When The Immanent Frame launched, it filled a real gap by bringing religion and public life into conversation in a serious but accessible way. Over time, the ecosystem has changed, with more platforms and social media filling parts of that role. I’d say the project still matters, but its influence is quieter and more specialized now.

That makes sense. I hadn’t fully considered how much the influence might have shifted from public facing to more inward looking academic circles. Quiet relevance is still relevance, just harder to see from the outside.

 

[Miguel Torres]

I agree with that framing. Early on, The Immanent Frame was fairly central to certain interdisciplinary conversations. Today, it’s one node among many. That doesn’t diminish its value, but it does change how we talk about influence. Founder profiles tend to freeze impact at its peak moment rather than showing how it evolves.

That idea of founder profiles freezing impact at a peak moment really resonates. It explains why these pieces can feel slightly out of sync with the current reality of a project.