Thread: Counter Culture Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020158
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
I think there is a strong element within Christianity of being counter culture - refusing to conform to expectations, refusing to conform to societies norms. Jesus was - in my view - a pain because he refused to fit in.
In more recent times, some people have appreciated the counter-culture/hippy/alternative lifestyle connections, and understood that Christian counter-culture is damned difficult, and about trying to reject the commercialism and the oppression that is rife in our society. Even if we don't always do it.
And yet the last few years seems to have a different interpretation of this - counter-culture as retro culture, seen in the opposition to homosexuality (and this has been stirred partly by the appalling way that Vicky Beeching has been treated by some parts of the church). In truth, that is also counter-culture - a rejection of the modern cultural acceptance of difference in terms of sexuality, gender, behaviour. And yet it is wrong (wrong because it seems to be totally hate-filled, not wrong because I disagree).
So how do we - Christians - be counter-culture without being arseholes?
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
The 1st Christians saw Jesus as lord - so the Emperor wasn't.
We can choose the path of nonviolence insteasd of embracing the war and arms of the current empire (Trump)
[ 22. April 2017, 18:10: Message edited by: leo ]
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
What an excellent question.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
The Christianity I see is entirely cultural. The CoE used to be called the Tory party at prayer. Nothing radical about it or wider evangelicalism. Just pious.
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
...
So how do we - Christians - be counter-culture without being arseholes?
Jesus told us that the world will hate us, if we follow Him. That is, they will call us arseholes.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
You can disguise your own resentment at the threat that you might lose your place of privilege as counter-cultural, but it's anything but, and that's when you start looking like an asshole, at least in my eyes.
Jesus reached out to those outside of the privileged groups. Even though there are secular groups out there doing the same thing, if you want to be counter-cultural in the way of Jesus, that's what you have to do. And when it looks like society has come around to one group, look for Jesus running ahead to meet the next group.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
...
So how do we - Christians - be counter-culture without being arseholes?
Jesus told us that the world will hate us, if we follow Him. That is, they will call us arseholes.
I doubt he meant that it'd be because we were the ones still getting at the queers.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
It's all flipped and scrambled isn't it. Anti-Christian is counter culture. Anti-Christian dressed in Christian clothes is dominant culture, like that pence feller.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
That is, they will call us arseholes.
There can be more than one reason for that. There's a difference between being a fool for Christ and being a twit for Christ.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
The Christianity I see is entirely cultural
All except your particular flavour no doubt ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Christianity as counter-culture has been something I have aspired to ever since my student days. I'd say it involves applying the values of the kingdom of God within the framework of society at large, in such a way as to be neither alienated from that society nor its slave.
It also requires a large dollop of discernment to identify things we might perceive as distinctively Christian which are in fact highly culture-bound and/or "worldly".
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
I am reading A Generation of Sociopaths by Bruce Gribney. It deals with the American Babyboom Generation, which is different than the European Post-War Generation. Basically, he points out that the American Boomers have always been about "me, myself, and I." As I am reading the book, I have been thinking about how the church is counter generational at least to the Boomers. Altruism is not in the Boomer vocabulary, never has been, nor has personal responsibility.
The sad part is, the American Evangelical movement, which is made up of mostly Boomers, has not stood up to the sociopathic tendencies of its society; but I do think the more mainline churches whose traditions can be traced back to the early church have a better platform to be counter-cultural. And I am seeing succeeding generations listening to the mainline message. The church needs to stay true to the message of love God, love neighbor and not sell out to the self interest ideals of the Boomers.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
It seems to me there are (at least) two meanings of counter-cultural. Firstly, you could be a contrarian, opposing things for the sake of opposing them. Secondly, you could be objecting to certain things in current culture. If those things are deemed part of the current culture then you are still counter-cultural.
Neither means you are right or wrong, though the first seems bound to be wrong in certain aspects.
So which is it to be? - or if not these, then what?
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
It seems to me there are (at least) two meanings of counter-cultural. Firstly, you could be a contrarian, opposing things for the sake of opposing them. Secondly, you could be objecting to certain things in current culture. If those things are deemed part of the current culture then you are still counter-cultural.
Or you're just not particularly interested in the current culture. Perhaps you don't place value on conformity, but evaluate each item on its merits. That's not nearly as strong as "objecting to things in the current culture" - but it's actively ignoring the pressure to go along with the default.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Altruism is not in the Boomer vocabulary, never has been, nor has personal responsibility.
As a Baby Boomer, I think that is a massive and false over-generalization.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
There is little evidence that mainstream Christianity has, for any sustained period since Constantine, been counter cultural. Quite the contrary, it has supported fat cat culture, wars and worse with the greatest of ease. Break away Christian Sects have had better, but varying degrees of success at being counter culture.
This isn't to say that individual people, both Christian and non Christian, haven't gone against the grain and endeavoured to achieve good things outside the 'box' as it were.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
actively ignoring the pressure to go along with the default.
Yes. Reminds me of this poster.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
The Christianity I see is entirely cultural
All except your particular flavour no doubt
Christianity as counter-culture has been something I have aspired to ever since my student days. I'd say it involves applying the values of the kingdom of God within the framework of society at large, in such a way as to be neither alienated from that society nor its slave.
It also requires a large dollop of discernment to identify things we might perceive as distinctively Christian which are in fact highly culture-bound and/or "worldly".
Only in my armchair Eutychus. In my praxis I'm invisible 99% of the time, as a litter picking plant spotter at best. Slightly culturally quirky flavoured me. Wish I could be as savoury as Oasis, true. Or anyone actually incarnational.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
]Or you're just not particularly interested in the current culture. Perhaps you don't place value on conformity, but evaluate each item on its merits. That's not nearly as strong as "objecting to things in the current culture" - but it's actively ignoring the pressure to go along with the default.
Yes, I think properly defined; insofar as Christianity is counter-cultural or cultural it should be tangentially and accidentally so.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
The sad part is, the American Evangelical movement, which is made up of mostly Boomers, has not stood up to the sociopathic tendencies of its society; but I do think the more mainline churches whose traditions can be traced back to the early church have a better platform to be counter-cultural. And I am seeing succeeding generations listening to the mainline message. The church needs to stay true to the message of love God, love neighbor and not sell out to the self interest ideals of the Boomers.
Is it that the American Evangelical movement doesn't stand up to sociopathy because it is the basis for it, and it actively promotes sociopathic attitudes and behaviour with it's endorsement of selfish, low tax, don't-help-the-poor conservatism? And it's not boomers it's Elmer Gantry (which is 90 years ago). It's written into the fabric of the 20th century, which culturally started right after WW1, continues with the shining city on a hill, which is opposed to the axis of evil, and needs to be made great again, like the straying Hebrews. With only the redemptive violence of the Great Depression and WW2 to show how greatness is accomplished by suffering followed by confrontation and war.
It looks like if from here. The more noxious ends of it include the winnowing of the population via competitive capitalism, so that the damned become poorer and the wealthy elect blessed. God is judging people by their money and the happiness they purchase. "Christian" political leadership has made things more unequal: the more they say they are Christian, the less they actually are.
Perhaps the greatest foundational evil is ignoring that scripture says that the possession of private wealth is intrinsically evil, viz. Jesus’s warnings to the rich. The intrinsic evil of possessing wealth is explained it away, and pretending that it does not mean what it unquestionably means. Why on earth would we expect the Boomers to do other than endorse the attitudes of their parents and grandparents? To realize the full fruits they pursued?
I suppose I am lumping all evangelicals together unfairly. but I do question their emphasis on individual salvationism, and see this as a foundational flaw in this stripe of belief, and it's murderous values, because it privatizes Jesus into a personal relationship, and asks the individual to appraise their pilgrim progress in accord with their accomplishments, and frequently, to their accrued wealth. Sure they get together in churches, but these churches are feel good places without actually social changes of the counter cultural manner Jesus promoted.
Counter culture today is going off grid (more individualism) or camping out to prevent a pipeline (temporary collectivism to prevent a perceived evil). There's not much room for Jesus in any of it.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
That is, they will call us arseholes.
There can be more than one reason for that. There's a difference between being a fool for Christ and being a twit for Christ.
This leads to an unfortunate intellectual dynamic:
Jesus said people will hate us if we follow him properly.
People hate us.
Therefore we are following him properly.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
Given that Western civilisation has been soaked in Christianity for the best part of two thousand years, Christianity shouldn't be that counter-cultural.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Yeah, you'd think that a culture like America, that declared itself 86% Christian not so long ago, if it were that savoury a hamburger would taste a little salty.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
Mousethief - precisely. The activity ends up defined by the result, not the action.
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Given that Western civilisation has been soaked in Christianity for the best part of two thousand years, Christianity shouldn't be that counter-cultural.
But that is the point - it should be counter-cultural, BECAUSE it is the established faith. We therefore have a privileged place from which we should be able to challenge society. We should be leading society into a more tolerant place not dragging it back to to hatred.
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
insofar as Christianity is counter-cultural or cultural it should be tangentially and accidentally so.
Yes. Counter-cultural isn't a virtue.
Subcultures can be countercultural. But can you have a countercultural culture ?
Nothing wrong with setting out to build a Christian culture.
Just don't confuse it with a conservative culture or a progressive culture.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Given that Western civilisation has been soaked in Christianity for the best part of two thousand years, Christianity shouldn't be that counter-cultural.
Well, you'd like to think it'd be that way, but given we spent several hundred years soaking western Civilisation in Christianly shed blood, perhaps not. Ironically it's often been secular movements which have dragged the West into a more Christian culture often against the opposition of the church. Not always, but not rarely either.
[ 23. April 2017, 10:54: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
All this reminds me of what I once heard someone say about the Magnificat: it's cyclical, and it never ends. He puts down the mighty and exalts the humble, puts down the mighty and exalts the humble, puts down the mighty and exalts the humble....
In our world the oppressed, when they come to power, are under no obligation to be kind to their former oppressors. Until we learn that this is a mistake, the Magnificat will never end.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
Precisely what culture do you want it to counter SC. I mean most of us are born into a culture of one sort or another.
The present secular culture seems reasonably happy and balanced without religious guidance. Accepting there is still some hatred, intolerance and lasciviousness about, no worse than when the Church reigned supreme, some would say proportionally less. Just depends where you put the measuring stick.
Going back to the time when Rome made Christianity the established faith, because let's face it they would be no such thing as Christianity had they not. Did it stop them revelling in the obscene cruelty of the Games? It did not. Did it stop members of the elite shagging everything that moved? It did not.
Apart from helping hold Europe together through the Dark Ages, Christianity usually morphs or is blended to suit the prevailing culture. As it is now, (albeit with difficulty), with the dominance of Secular freedom.
I think people like me just go to Church now and again became they feel like it for an unspecified reason. The only way to go counter culture would be to become a Buddhist hermit, (without broadband connection).
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
... The present secular culture seems reasonably happy and balanced. ...
It clearly isn't. If it were, Brexit, Trump, Le Pen, Hofer and Wilders wouldn't have people voting for them
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Jesus this is ludicrous. Whilst Christians can be counter-culture, Christianity hasn't been for most of its existence.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
The Christianity I see is entirely cultural
All except your particular flavour no doubt
This is EXACTLY what you, and most of the rest, are doing. Picking particular examples out to illustrate your point, so roll those eyes inward. Or step away from examining the brush stroke and look at the entire canvas.
[ 23. April 2017, 14:32: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Whilst Christians can be counter-culture, Christianity hasn't been for most of its existence.
That's it!
I knew there was an answer to this vexed question. Christians live and serve in a huge variety of cultures. Some will need to be very counter-culture, others will not.
Look to Christ. He was counter culture - the prevailing culture was exclusive and unequal, especially the religious culture. Of course, he'd find plenty of that in the Church today.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
It seems to me there are (at least) two meanings of counter-cultural. Firstly, you could be a contrarian, opposing things for the sake of opposing them. Secondly, you could be objecting to certain things in current culture. If those things are deemed part of the current culture then you are still counter-cultural.
Or you're just not particularly interested in the current culture. Perhaps you don't place value on conformity, but evaluate each item on its merits. That's not nearly as strong as "objecting to things in the current culture" - but it's actively ignoring the pressure to go along with the default.
It is thing contrary to much of human nature.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
SO OK, the anti-slavery movement was largely driven by Christians - yes, in opposition to other Christians, but driven by counter-cultural Christians.
Whereas the promotion of womens' rights has been largely from a sometimes anti-church feminist movement - shown not least by the established church taking decades to catch up by allowing women to be first ordained and then made bishops.
And in the acceptance of alternative sexuality the church is on the opposing progress. Never mind gender issues. These are areas where Christians (I take the point) should be promoting change, and driving change.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
SO OK, the anti-slavery movement was largely driven by Christians - yes, in opposition to other Christians, but driven by counter-cultural Christians.
By Christians who chose to go counter to the mainstream Christian culture.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
A Christian culture which could well see that times were-a-changing in the face of mechanisation, together with a general shift in overseas interest from West to East.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
SO OK, the anti-slavery movement was largely driven by Christians - yes, in opposition to other Christians, but driven by counter-cultural Christians.
To a certain extent, yes. As long as you define the anti-slavery movement rather narrowly as people living in the UK, like Wilberforce. The slave revolts that preceded Wilberforce - specifically in Haiti - had a huge impact on the ending of slavery, and hardly any of the Maroons were Christians.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Altruism is not in the Boomer vocabulary, never has been, nor has personal responsibility.
As a Baby Boomer, I think that is a massive and false over-generalization.
Ditto. Guess the Boomers' work for social justice, environmental protection, consumer protection, the Internet, personal computers, etc. doesn't matter.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Altruism is not in the Boomer vocabulary, never has been, nor has personal responsibility.
As a Baby Boomer, I think that is a massive and false over-generalization.
Ditto. Guess the Boomers' work for social justice, environmental protection, consumer protection, the Internet, personal computers, etc. doesn't matter.
The internet began as a military project and certainly wasn't altruistic. Personal computer have been commercial ventures in the main since their beginnings.
Altruism is owned by no generation.
Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on
:
From my observation, any group which sees itself as counter-cultural will find itself becoming culturally bound, often within a generation. The Gospels and Letters of Paul are a rather good example. The history of feminism is another.
Even if you start off with lots of ideals and energy, a mortgage and family tend to settle you down, and make your interest in falling foul of the mainstream culture reduce. This is accompanied by your countercultural group making itself lots of rules about behaviour of its members. At that point, you are no longer counter-cultural.
My observation of the church is that there is no way any Christian group can be properly counter-cultural any more. Either churches have sucked up the dominant culture and identify themselves with the leaders thereof and thus ARE the culture, or they are unlikely to be any different from the various social project groups outside the church.
However, I do find it interesting that the Pope is getting into trouble with his hierarchy for encouraging a gospel centred Catholicism rather than a doctrine centred one. Given his high position, that could be considered rather counter-cultural (or naïve, which is what many of us at a much lower level have been called for the same ideas).
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
The hippie movement was another good example of something counter cultural and transient. It peaked quickly with the Summer of Love then the ideology started to fold.
Communes are usually doomed to failure for similar reasons. Followers either cow-tow to a charismatic leader or turn on each other with their individual Establishment based agendas.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Altruism is not in the Boomer vocabulary, never has been, nor has personal responsibility.
As a Baby Boomer, I think that is a massive and false over-generalization.
Ditto. Guess the Boomers' work for social justice, environmental protection, consumer protection, the Internet, personal computers, etc. doesn't matter.
The internet began as a military project and certainly wasn't altruistic. Personal computer have been commercial ventures in the main since their beginnings.
Altruism is owned by no generation.
Yes, it is a generalization, but one that has a definite basis in fact. The whole hippy thing was based on not taking any responsibility for anything but self-amusement (taking advantage of, among other things, The Pill and its implication of consequence-free actions). The anti-Vietnam war thing was based on "not me, I'm not going to get shot at for any reason", whatever the old guys said. And everyone having cars allowed for the avoidance of social restrictions, as shown by the Dukes of Hazzard. The freer flow of information added to the general mood of disengagement, particularly as the sins of the Church became better known, leading to the freedom of evangelicals to wander down a path which led to Donald Trump, who epitomises fact-free inability to deal with responsibility.Yes, many Boomers have excellent values, but, set against the wealthy who are screwing the entire country, those "good" ones haven't a hope.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
The anti-Vietnam war thing was based on "not me, I'm not going to get shot at for any reason"
If that was the case, then wouldn't the students who protested the war have been better off just studying harder to make sure they stayed in university, with its attendant draft deferrals, rather than wasting time protesting the war?
Or are draft-deferrals just something Hollywood concocted to spice up campus comedies set in the 1960s?
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
I'm not sure that Christianity as needing to be counter-cultural is quite right, though I have much sympathy with the arguments for the proposition. There are, after all, elements in any culture which are to be applauded and encouraged. At the very least one would need to define what aspects of a culture are to be challenged. Rather I think that Christianity should take a position of constructive critical engagement with the various societies in which it finds itself.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Or are draft-deferrals just something Hollywood concocted to spice up campus comedies set in the 1960s?
Draft Classifications. Three apply to schooling.
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Yes, it is a generalization, but one that has a definite basis in fact. The whole hippy thing was based on not taking any responsibility for anything but self-amusement (taking advantage of, among other things, The Pill and its implication of consequence-free actions). The anti-Vietnam war thing was based on "not me, I'm not going to get shot at for any reason", whatever the old guys said. And everyone having cars allowed for the avoidance of social restrictions, as shown by the Dukes of Hazzard. The freer flow of information added to the general mood of disengagement, particularly as the sins of the Church became better known,
Wow. Is there no grass one's feet may feel? Hippies had a variety of motivations, the Pill is a boon to feminism and not all war protesters are cowards.
quote:
leading to the freedom of evangelicals to wander down a path which led to Donald Trump, who epitomises fact-free inability to deal with responsibility.
Hippies led to Trump?
Mind. Blown.
[ 24. April 2017, 22:45: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
lB--
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Ditto. Guess the Boomers' work for social justice, environmental protection, consumer protection, the Internet, personal computers, etc. doesn't matter.
The internet began as a military project and certainly wasn't altruistic. Personal computer have been commercial ventures in the main since their beginnings.
Altruism is owned by no generation.
Yeah, sorry. I was in a bit of a mood about this, and thinking beyond altruism to good things that have come from Boomers, or in which they were heavily involved.
I wasn't sure about including the Net; but it came out of that period, and does a lot of good. (And yes, I know about ARPAnet.) Same with PCs--not governmental, AFAIK; and yes, commercialism was involved. But much of it was due to tech geeks, puttering and playing and inventing for themselves and friends, then as business.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
rolyn--
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Communes are usually doomed to failure for similar reasons. Followers either cow-tow to a charismatic leader or turn on each other with their individual Establishment based agendas.
"The Farm" survived, and is still going. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
SO OK, the anti-slavery movement was largely driven by Christians - yes, in opposition to other Christians, but driven by counter-cultural Christians.
/
To a certain extent, yes. As long as you define the anti-slavery movement rather narrowly as people living in the UK, like Wilberforce. The slave revolts that preceded Wilberforce - specifically in Haiti - had a huge impact on the ending of slavery, and hardly any of the Maroons were Christians.
Upper Canada got rid of slavery in 1792. Haiti wasn't even in the cards, yet.
Posted by Egeria (# 4517) on
:
Gribney's book sounds like unadulterated bovine excrement. Even the title gives it away: idiotic age-related bigotry within. (Sounds like this misfit grabbed the title from the notorious Generation of Vipers.)
Generational sociology is not intellectually respectable. It categorizes people and judges them by arbitrarily decided ranges of dates within which they were born. It's no more "scientific" than astrology. Why should someone born in 1962 have more in common with a total stranger born in 1946 than with his or her younger sibling born in 1966?
I am just old enough to remember the so-called "counter-culture" but not old enough to have participated in it--that is how brief that fad was. I grew up in the San Francisco Bay Area listening to journalists and rightwing nutjobs (like the vicious, anti-intellectual, corrupt, incompetent Hollywood hack in the Governor's office) shrieking about hippies and commies and the threat to Our Sacred Way of Life. And I never met an actual hippie. (The three or four communists I have met are all decent, kind, thoughtful, law-abiding, respectable citizens.)
And don't forget that the original hippies were too old to be "baby boomers" and most "baby boomers" were too young to have been hippies.
In high school in the 1970s very few of the students had cars. Many girls were not yet taking birth-control pills, if they ever started at all. I don't remember much of this attitude of self-absorbed hedonism alluded to above. College-bound students were expected to give some thought to social responsibility, and I think most of us (at least those who actually belonged in college) did.
The public figures who promoted selfishness and ridiculed social justice and environmentalism during those years were mostly far too old to be baby boomers. Some of the most influential were members of the so-called "Greatest Generation"--wealthy, famous, selfish, and ignorant.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
The problem with "countercultural" is that there are multiple cultures within a society. For example, take the perceived left-wing cultures of major universities in North America. The left-wing cultures of university may view themselves as "countercultural" because they are going against the perceived conservative tenor of North American society. But right-wing activists within those universities may perceive themselves as "countercultural" because they are resisting the dominant left-wing university discourse.
Kwok Pui-Lan, post-colonial theologian at EDS, once came to my neck of the woods in BC. She spoke that it is an illusion to think that there is a "pure Christianity" that exists prior to entanglement with empire. From her teaching, one could say that it is impossible to imagine Christianity as countercultural if one understands this idea to mean a "pure" Christianity that exists prior to culture.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
lilbuddha wrote:
quote:
Draft Classifications. Three apply to schooling.
Well, according to that, the student deferrals only applied until graduation, so I guess it's possible that a lot of the student protestors were worried about getting drafted AFTER they left school.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Christianity as a whole is a hugely diverse, adaptable religion, so there are going to be parts of it that are more countercultural than others, depending on which culture we're talking about. But if it were going to be wholly countercultural in every way then by definition it would have to remain quite a small movement. But perhaps many churches and fellowships have smallness as part of their ministry and calling.
It could be argued that the most countercultural thing the denominations could do would be to unite into one vast worldwide operation, hierarchy and theology. Many Christians dream of such a thing. But I don't think it would be terribly helpful to ordinary believers. Choice and flexibility is one of the advantages of the religion, at least up to a point.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
The problem with "countercultural" is that there are multiple cultures within a society.
Yes and no. There is often a dominant thread running though and defining what it means to be British, American or Canadian.¹ It has variations and subcultures, but there is most often a dominant theme(s).
¹Canada seems to have two, and there are other countries with large, semi-seperate cultures. But counter-culture exists inside those, not between them.
quote:
For example, take the perceived left-wing cultures of major universities in North America. The left-wing cultures of university may view themselves as "countercultural" because they are going against the perceived conservative tenor of North American society. But right-wing activists within those universities may perceive themselves as "countercultural" because they are resisting the dominant left-wing university discourse.
What one is countering is the dominant culture, not merely anything that is different. The right-wing students represented the mainstream culture.
quote:
Kwok Pui-Lan, post-colonial theologian at EDS, once came to my neck of the woods in BC. She spoke that it is an illusion to think that there is a "pure Christianity" that exists prior to entanglement with empire. From her teaching, one could say that it is impossible to imagine Christianity as countercultural if one understands this idea to mean a "pure" Christianity that exists prior to culture.
Again, this misses the point of what counter-culture is. The argument is, IMO, whether Christianity represented a culture prior to its forcible adoption into Roman culture.
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on
:
Somehow all of this discussion seems to ignore many centuries in which "the church" was the dominant culture, at least in most of Europe. Sometimes the counter-cultural actions and feelings are directed against the institutional church. I imagine St. Francis would agree, and so might Martin Luther. It may be that Christianity must have such rebellions whenever the church sits back in comfort and thinks of itself as good.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
Somehow all of this discussion seems to ignore many centuries in which "the church" was the dominant culture, at least in most of Europe.
Seriously, WTF?! That has been my point from the beginning.
quote:
Sometimes the counter-cultural actions and feelings are directed against the institutional church. I imagine St. Francis would agree, and so might Martin Luther. It may be that Christianity must have such rebellions whenever the church sits back in comfort and thinks of itself as good.
This point has also been made.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
Can the church be counter-cultural?
Ask Pope Francis.
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
I guess the concept of Grace rather than Law and Custom is counter-cultural. For example, those who worked an hour not only receiving the same as those who toiled all day but also being paid first!
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
This recent article in the Guardian posits the CofE as countercultural with regard to weddings.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/24/pippa-middleton-wedding-anglican-church
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
This recent article in the Guardian posits the CofE as countercultural with regard to weddings.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/24/pippa-middleton-wedding-anglican-church
I am puzzled how this is counter cultural. Counter to expectations, yes. But this is not the same thing.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0