I recently read a Youth Specialties article a friend sent to me which the late Mike Yaconelli wrote back in 2001 entitled, Youth Ministry Rant. In this article, he questions what's going on in the commodified version of youth ministry he was witnessing. In this rant (which he recognizes as a rant - which God gracefully allows us to sometimes do - look at the Psalms!), he critiques Christian Colleges:
"What is the deal with Christian colleges, anyway? Shouldn’t they be graduating students who are revolutionary, anti-institutional, anti-cultural extremists? Isn’t anyone else upset that most of our Christian colleges are graduating compliant, materialistic, irrelevant students who don’t have a radical bone in their bodies? Who will push the envelope in the generations to come?"
This paragraph got me thinking - this is what I have come up with in response:
Simply Sanctified, Organic Radicality
As I think about this statement, I find myself resonating with Mike Yaconelli's recognition of the problem. I agree that in many ways our colleges have become domesticated. Like genetically modified food, our idea of the development of Christian leaders has been watered-down into something that is tasteless, mass-produced, but cosmetically-cleaned up.
However, this response is more from my own discontent as part of an ideological group that would lean more towards storming the bastille than conceding to such ideas! I agree with Yaconelli, but I don't know if Jesus would agree with me! I think this perspective represents a very subversive human response that is more reflective of culture than it is Christ. This is the typical "Christian-hippy-gone-wild-in-the-China-Shop" response which (when I think about it) doesn't seem to be as radical as one would suppose.
I agree that there is a problem with graduating compliant, materialistic, irrelevant students, but at what point do we part from a typical (and predictable) "rage-against-the-machine" response? Should we be graduating students that are revolutionary, anti-institutional, and anti-cultural... what does this mean? (Let alone, can one ever be truly anti-cultural?)
More importantly, how does this relate to the type of programs like Project 1:17 that are emerging the The Salvation Army? Are these groups intended to be simply an obnoxious, knock-off Christian version of whatever is the latest form of cultural rebellion? Are we intended to graduate students who are going to proclaim to other Salvationists their irrelevancy, compliance and materialism? Are we seeking to cultivate a rebellious people or a prophetic people? This might be one of the greatest temptations Satan uses to derail the possibility of a more profound simple, sanctified, organic radicality that Christ clearly modeled for us.
Jesus seems to offer a much more radical alternative - his team of disciples included revolutionary, anti-institutional, anti-cultural zealots and compliant, materialistic, irrelevant tax collectors and Pharisees! We never hear of Matthew and Simon the Zealot clashing anywhere in Scripture! How did Jesus get this right? Somehow, Jesus saw things through an alternative lens - a third alternative to cultural co-optation and cultural subversion. This comes closer to the ideal I think that we should pursue.
Jesus revolution was pro-cultural. It wasn't really anti-institutional. It wasn't materialistic or irrelevant. I think that Jesus was about raising up a prophetic people - who would concede giving to ceasar that which was ceasar, but radically protest the stoning of an adulterous woman. Cultural theorists Stuart Hall and David Morely talks about how in culture there are "dominant hegemonic" and "counter-hegemonic" groups, but how there is also a third group which he calls "negotiative." (If you want to delve into the mind-bleeding world of cultural studies, check out Semiotics for Beginners). I think Jesus chose the critical position of the negotiative - a much more radical position that invited both the zealot and tax collector into dialogue - recognizing strengths and weaknesses in both groups.
I would naturally resonate with 90% of what Mike Yaconelli is saying, but this doesn't necessarily make me right. I have to submit my own, fallen conception of radicality to the radicality of Christ. Jesus revolution will look foolish to this world. Remember: Jesus went to war on a Donkey, didn't use a great deal of rhetoric with Pilate, and chose to hold off 10 000 angels when his life was being sacrificed - not exactly the Robert's Rules of Revolution! ...and yet this far more brilliant strategy set in place the greatest revolution in history. I want to be part of that Army!
8 comments:
Steve,
You make the distinction between rebels and prophets. I am not sure there is too much of a distinction there. Revolutionaries do tend to challenge current cultural and religious systems. I hope we have some of the real revolutionaries around. If not, we just become the cool kids. Lots of theory, but no guts in ministry.
Larry,
I think how I would differentiate prophets from revolutionaries would be motive.
An individual with a revolutionary personality is someone who resists institution, rebels, protests because that's what they are naturally inclined to do on basis of their temperament. This person will "make a noise" regardless of the issue or context. Revolutionaries do challenge cultural and religious systems, but they also challenge the latest ice cream flavor at Coldstone!
I would distinguish this from a prophet - who speaks out of something on the basis of something more than their personal discontent. A prophet is someone who speaks at the appropriate time for appropriate issues - and then shuts up. At this moment in time, the prophet will be revolutionary, but this is not the permanent posture of the prophet.
A revolutionary can sometimes, but not always, be prophetic. Unfortunately, when the revolutionary is being revolutionary at inappropriate time, this ends up making them appear obnoxious as they essentialize their protesting posture into a predictable form of rebellion - regardless of the issue at hand.
My argument is that there is very little that is truly radical about the position of an individual who has a revolutionary personality.
For example, what happens when an individual who has had a 'rage-against-the-machine' mindset wins on the issue that they have been fighting for? Are they content and move back into a cooperative position? Often, no. If you have a fighting personality, you will continue to fight - if not against enemies, then against allies. This isn't helpful, it's simply destructive.
I agree that prophets will be revolutionary, but for a season. This doesn't make them "cool kids" or "arm-chair theorists" - it simply means they're smart enough to negotiate on issues.
Thoughts?
Steve,
Being a revolutionary individual comes at a cost. In fact, all change comes at a cost. The trick is fighting for that which God has called you to fight specifically against. Right? Shouldn't our prayer be for God to break our hearts with that which breaks his heart? When that happens it comes to praying for the direction which we are to take to battle against the problem. Sometimes revolutionary people are going to be the quite voice that gets the troops riled up and moving. Sometimes they start the battle and then bring others along side them to fight the same problem.
I think that in The Salvation Army, we have become middle of the road on many issues that are close to my heart but I know that the way to fight them is not to stand on my soapbox and get the people going but to start moving and pray for reinforcements and co-fighters.
I hope that this session of 117 and cadets are going to be those who change things in this world.
I think that many Christians are afraid to rock the boat because of the way we are portrayed in editorials and other news stories. Do they not want to damage the image of the church? Or is it really that they do not want to damage the image of themselves?
Just a thought.
Elizabeth
Hi Elizabeth,
I agree that there is a price to pay for being a revolutionary. As you have identified, it is important that our revolution is in tune with what God desires. Unfortunately, I have made the mistake along with others of bankrupting myself on issues that are not issues that break the heart of God. We are in a dangerous place when we are revolutionary simply for the sake of being revolutionary - or because we woke up on the wrong side of the bed for that morning - or because that's the nature of our personality - or because that is our political conviction - or because that's the psycho-social climate of our culture or generation. At this point, we begin to confuse what is the voice of God with our own personal voice.
That is why I am proposing a differentiation between being prophetic and being revolutonary. A prophet mediates a message that is not from themselves, but from God. I think that we are all lured into justifying our defiance and rebellion on the basis of believing that we are in the right.
I am not proposing a watering down of ethical convictions and becoming spineless. Rather, I am asking us to distill what the most important issues are. In life, no one can win every battle they fight - living life in a continual frontal assault only creates unnecessary casualties. Like my father-in-law has always said, "there is more than one way to win a war." A great officer in the military is not the one who has one inflexible battle plan - a great officer knows when to engage in frontal assault, when to retreat, when to use alternative strategies, etc. This is not a person without convictions - rather, this is a person with common sense.
I would agree that co-optation is simply not an option. Self-preservation can never be our motive. However, if a person is simply a "hot-head" who burns bridges, it's not that this is synonymous with martyrdom or taking a bullet-for-the-cause. This is a naive and foolish.
I would encourage you to read Paulo Freire's "Pedagogy of the Oppressed." In it, he talks about how to pursue real change and develop people who are 'critically conscious.' It's a great read that was originally recommended to me by Lt-Colonel Lyle Rader. Amazing book!
Steve
Really good thoughts. I'm always challenged when the subject of "rebel vs. reformer" comes up. I can always see a little of both in my attitude and actions and am always reminded that being a rebel isn't the goal. But wow, those lines get pretty hazy from time to time and, like you said, when I lose focus/stop listening it's not long before I find myself ranting on about the type of cheese being served. Thanks again.
Hi Tim,
I, too, share this temptation. It's one of the dangers which comes with being a part of a culture that looks at the world cynically. Each of us face the challenge of rising above the response which is expected from us.
As you mentioned on Larry's latest post, things such as greeting people after a Sunday meeting and following some basic procedures might seem like some form of cooptation (hence very un-revolutionary) - when, in fact, these are the attributes of anyone who has chosen to take up their cross and follow Jesus.
By the way, I do enjoy a good cheese!
*quickly looks up the word 'cooptation'*
Hmmm... bring on the Revolution!!! somethings not working in our Army (lack of obedience, holiness, vision?), God wants to raise up a new 'generation' of onfire Salvationists , rebels WITH a cause... and its happening now.
I'm currently in a Christian college (Training College Aust Sth), and I can definately understand where Mike Yaconelli is finding his angst! Thank the Lord I can see the current session (at least) having some inkling that compliance, materialism and irrelevance are off the agenda (although I pray that we aren't molded into it!).
Anyway, there's definately room for some Holy Spirit fire to be rekindled in our Army.
The Revolution starts here.
Jo Brookshaw (cadet)
My blog about officers and Revolution...
http://revolutionarmy.blogspot.com/2007/02/spiritual-revolution-for-21st-century.html
Post a Comment