Review of Andrew Rot's "Faith Formation in a Secular Age vol.1" (Part 4)
5: The Rise of Hip
The Conquest of Cool
Neither the Organization Man of
Mass Society and the Bohemian rebels who critiqued them had any use for
transcendence. As Root puts it,
“The romanticism of bohemians led them to
despise the church but to seek the many flavors of spirituality through desire.
Organization Man attended and supported the church but flattened it into a
bureaucratic institution without spirituality. Both turned to naturalism
(either of desire or of science and organization) that had little room for
divine action.” (1666)
Ad-men hated
the Organization Man. He was boring and aesthetically uninteresting. An
obstacle to their work. They sought for other ways to ply their trade but until
the youth movement got underway there were few alternatives to the Organization
Man. The latter’s coup against conformity, its “cool,” seemed to advertisers an
ally in their effort to revitalize and energize American business.
Cool Competition
The Bohemian cool
or hip carried an added benefit not immediately recognized by advertisers. It
communicated a spirituality perfect for the times. It promoted a salvation tied
to authenticity and adherence meant buying things. These things were
sacramental realities (cars, clothes, etc.). Thus cool and capitalism are
joined at the hip. Heath and Potter say it this way:
“This is a roundabout
way of making the point that the bohemian value system—that is, cool—is the
very lifeblood of capitalism. Cool people like to see themselves as radicals,
subversives who refuse to conform to accepted ways of doing things. And this is
exactly what drives capitalism. It is true that genuine creativity is
completely rebellious and subversive, since it disrupts existing patterns of
thought and life. It subverts everything except capitalism itself.”[1]
Thus, buying
was turned from conformity to competition. “Cool moves the competition of
capitalism from large to small, from nations and corporations to individuals.
In the dawning age of authenticity, I buy not to keep up with the Joneses but
to beat them—to be cooler than they are. When cool is our path and authenticity
is our aim, consumption is for competition.” (1736) In the late 60’s buying
itself became bohemian, an experience full of emotional power.
Rebel Youth
“By heralding the
youthful as the projectors of cool and gods of authenticity, they extracted the
very humanity of the young and turned their disruptive energy into a
transferable spirit that could be connected to products, politicians, and
programs needing a hit of legitimacy or excitement. Youthfulness now equaled
“rebel,” which has no necessary connection to the experience of young people
themselves (ironically violating the very romanticism that got this ball
rolling in the first place).” (1764)
And
it was the marketers who took this youthfulness viral.
“Buying became an
emotive experience of authentic expression, a way of remaining in or returning
to your youth—although not necessarily to your historically lived youth (who
would want that?) but instead to the supposed freedom and authenticity of
“youthfulness.” Youthfulness became an idealized place where each person was
completely their wants and desires as they bathed in the glory of being cool.
In a world without divine action, youthfulness was now an eschatological
category. Youthfulness was the strategic disposition, cool the path, and
authenticity the goal.” (1795)
Youth became a
sort of fantasy land in which all, even adults, can play. It was an attitude
toward life and consumption, not an age category.
How did
youthfulness get into the church? How does it lead us away from divine action? How
does Moralistic Therapeutic Deism fit into this story? Next chapter.
6: Churches Filled with Bobos—the Beasts of
Authenticity
If youthfulness
becomes a central strategy to reach authenticity the conditions are perfect for
“moralistic,” “therapeutic,” and “deism” to be the core descriptive labels for
this new spirituality. It did so in the second half of the 20th century.
As a spirituality without transcendence or divine action, youthfulness carries
the deistic element of MTD, an anthropology of self-pursuit (the therapeutic),
and an ethic for individualism (the moralistic). Once the drive for
authenticity is youthfulness, MTD becomes endemic, and you (and God) become
your desires. Our conceptions of faith become chained to the pursuit of
authenticity through youthfulness.
By the 70’s
youthfulness, the age of authenticity, hit full bore. Everyone was now bohemian
capitalist, “Bobos,” (bohemian bourgeios) as David Brooks famously named them.[2]
In the church, boboism “allow(ed) youthfulness to mutate the transcendent call
of Jesus to follow into a therapeutic pursuit of the self without divine
action.” (1901). It’s chief effect was to become a safeguard that kept people
from being jerks as they chased the authenticity of the self by following their
inner rebel youth.
“For the bobo,
faith formation and church participation are about cultural participation that
can support her individual cultural pursuits for happiness and success. MTD is
the perfect description of faith for the bobo.” (1901)
Evangelicalism
Evangelicalism
returned to societal notice in the 50’s after their retreat from public life
after the Scopes’ trial debacle. Conformity culture and the post-war Red scare
made the call to return to the old-time religion sound plausible. It was
particularly in youth ministry - Youth for Christ, Young Life, and Campus
Crusade – this approach made an impact.
Even so, it was
American mainline Protestantism that remained “the” American religion. Mainliners,
though, seemed to have less feel for the dawning age of authenticity than did
the evangelicals with their focus on individual conversion and religious
experience.
“When the counterculture
attacked technocratic scientism and asserted that it was seeking a more
authentic spirituality, this resonated with evangelicals, particularly in
California. Evangelicalism was much better positioned than the mainline to
reach out to a distinct youth culture but also to present youth with a
religious conception that made sense within the dawning age of authenticity.” (1930)
Evangelicals
were not relatives of the counter-cultural bohemians. Nevertheless, they moved within the same orbit. Both recognized that
mainstream religious life was more an abstraction of real experience than an
invitation into it. The mainline had made the gospel boring – and that is a
chief sin in the age of authenticity.
Evangelicals
contended, however, emotive expression and individual conversion, Christian
faith could break forth, offering a chance to go deeper than just the material
and natural.
Jesus Freaks
The Holiness
movement, a prime source for evangelicalism, though diametrically opposed to
the bohemianism of the Beats, were linked with them right at the place of
authenticity. Both centered on it, one taking a hedonistic route and the other
a route of self-denial.
Pentecostalism took
the Holiness movement viral at the turn of the 2oth century. Its impact widened
through its spread outside of Pentecostal circles (the Charismatic movement). “Evangelicals
were moving more and more into the middle class and bringing with them a potent
desire for an authentic religious experience. These middle-class youth driving
for authenticity in opposition to scientism were commendable, if shamefully
misguided.” (1978)
Scattered Hippies
Evangelicals especially in
California, had a vital outreach to the young people of the countercultural
revolution.
“These adults didn’t
call the young away from their bohemian-inspired pursuit of
authenticity—rather, they shared it. Nor did they call them away from their
countercultural sensibilities. Instead, they asked them to follow Jesus as a
way to find the true authenticity they desired, to continue to be
countercultural, but now for the sake of Jesus. Schäfer explains, “The
evangelical revival of the 1970s, rather than being nurtured by the rejection
of the 1960s, was thus in many ways a ‘Jesus trip’ that grew out of flower
power culture. In merging countercultural styles with biblical traditionalism,
the evangelicals . . . carried the distinctive combination of
subcultural identity and cultural integration that had been at the core of
conservative Protestantism.” (1989-2002)
These young
people, nurtured by evangelical Christianity, became what we know now as Jesus
Freaks.
Theological Slippage
The bohemianism
and Freudianism were a form of idealism that saw consciousness raising as the
doorway to liberation. If you had the right ideas and wore them like glasses,
you’d clearly see the trail to authenticity. Post-1960s liberals did this and
made actions of justice-seeking the means to the end of faith formation without
divine action.
“The
counterculture sought to open people’s minds to the right ideas about their
self and society. Sex, drugs, and rock and roll were the elixirs that freed the
mind to find the new idea of freedom that would allow you to be fully authentic
by remaining forever youthful.” (2914-2022) Unfortunately, the church also bought
into the countercultural notion that there is but one culture seeking
repression that must be swallowed or spit out whole.
The hippies
were looking for right idea to lead them to authenticity. Charismatic
Christianity put forth Jesus as that idea. This form of idealism had the impact
of flattening divine action, turning the reality of the living Christ into an
idea that would allow you as an individual to reach your authentic goal.
“Jesus (bound as an
idea), then, was not all that different in form from other ideas, like diet
pills, political parties, and all sorts of other products. (It’s no wonder that
post-1960s evangelicalism seemed a perfect fit for both consumer/seeker forms
of church and forceful entrance into the political scene.) While these
charismatic evangelicals continued talking about a personal relationship with
Jesus and seeking ecstatic experiences in worship, they nevertheless made faith
formation about commitment to the idea of Jesus, stripping formation,
ironically, of its transcendent encounter with divine action, making conversion
an epistemological shift rather than an ontological encounter.” (2032-2041)
The Pentecostal/Charismatic
experience drove those involved right into the cultural stream of seeking
authenticity. And that meant leveraging youthfulness as a way to pursue their
goal.
Youth Ministry
Youth ministry
grew and expanded at this time with a particular brief to capture and utilize
this youthfulness. This all started in California but quickly spread abroad. Youth
ministry went congregational and it also took a strong turn from catechesis to
a journey for authenticity.
“Evangelicals never
considered that the trail of cool and the goal of authenticity were in
themselves problematic, failing to recognize that the idealism of the
counterculture would strip them of transcendence too, making divine action flat.
Rather, for evangelicals, what was dangerous (and California seemed to teeter
on this) was the potential pitfalls of hedonism that pocked the path of cool
like potholes.” (2092-2100)
Thus youth
ministry became about promoting the search for authenticity through the
Holiness tradition of self-denial.
Bobos and MTD
The counter-cultural revolution
never ended. “The ideal has taken different shapes, moving from hippie to punk
to hip-hop G, but has remained in essence the resister of an inauthentic system
that opposes freedom and expression.” (2108)
“Now that consumption
had gone through the exciting days of the 1960s and conformity had been killed
by cool, the hippie was free to chase his wants as an adult, using what he
bought to express his individuality and therefore remain forever youthful. He could
be both bourgeois and bohemian, thanks to the admen and their continued
offering of the youthful spirit through bourgeois buying packaged in bohemian
longing for authenticity.” (2108)
Youth ministry
became a core staple of churches because it could attract the bobo. Bobo
parents wanted a church where their children could pursue authenticity but
could also be guided protected from upending their cultural progress with bad
decisions. Youth ministry, in both mainline and evangelical churches, morphed
into releasing the youthful spirit of counterculture for authenticity while in
turn also restricting this same youthful spirit from excesses. Evangelicals
turned more readily to self-help and therapy for authenticity while the
mainline turned to justice.
“Moralistic
Therapeutic Deism, then, is the descriptor of the spirituality of bobos and
their children who seek authenticity through the strategy of youthfulness.” (2149)
“Whether the
moralistic and therapeutic elements that are endemic to boboism (and to the
larger cultural air that fills our middle-class churches) are fundamentally
corrupt is up for debate. Yet when cultural deism is added to the moralistic
and the therapeutic, faith formation becomes bastardized.” (2159)
Deism and the Loss of Transcendence
The counter-culture found the
spirit of Mass Culture spiritless and pathetic. It sought a spirituality
without divine action (a transcendence without a personal divine reality). “The
bohemians who inspired the youth movement sought a natural and material
spirituality that would open them up not to the personhood of God but to new
ideas that would lead them into an idyllic state where cool was constant and
authenticity total.” (2176) Fundamentalism had glorified the Bible so fully
that the personhood of the triune being of God was overtaken by the idea of
inerrancy.
“Boboism brings together
both these bourgeois and bohemian conceptions of deism. Like the bohemians and
the true children of the counterculture, the bobo longs for spirituality, to
escape the mundane and search for meaning. But this search is often bound in
ideas. Self-help and therapeutic insights are so powerful because they provide
the bobo’s mind with new ideas that help her see her way to authenticity. These
new ideas are almost always bound to the strategy of youthfulness, calling her
to disrupt the ideas she holds to find new ideas that will give her new
meaning. Their spirituality is all about the pursuit of the new, maybe even the
cool. It is a deism that wants not a personal experience of another reality or
being but new, exciting experiences that enhance her journey to authenticity.”
(2185)
Without divine
action, faith formation in a bobo-istic church becomes bout belonging to the
right church which provide you what you are looking for.
Conclusion
Root
summarizes and points the way ahead.
“It is my
contention that to reimagine faith formation is to recognize the many layers
and cultural realities that have made faith formation so difficult. Too often
we’ve assumed that, with a new perspective here and a new pedagogy there, we
might provide dynamic ways of forming faith in our people. However, I’ve
presented this historical story—or better, this philosophical genealogy—to show
that something like MTD is not easily cut out. Rather, it is a tumor that is
wrapped around many organs and bones of twentieth- and twenty-first-century
American life. If we are still brave enough to try to reimagine faith
formation, then it is essential that we begin at the back end, with the D of
MTD—deism—exploring and rethinking how it is we encounter divine action itself.”
(2206)
Comments
Post a Comment