Being, “counter-cultural” is a buzz-word thrown around in fundamentalist/evangelical circles–many circles in fact. Or, it was when I was growing up in that world. Be different. Don’t follow the crowd. Lead. There was almost a militancy to the idea. “Stand up, stand up for Jesus, ye soldiers of the cross…” You get the picture.
In American culture, we love the idea of the rebel. Think American Revolution and down the road a bit, a “Johnny Rebel.” Also, think James Dean and “Rebel Without a Cause.” Think Rambo. Think Top Gun and, “Maverick.” We love to think that everyone else is a mindless follower of the crowd, a lemming, while we alone stand back as the rest plunge over the cliff.
The bunker mentality in fundamentalism/evangelicalism, caused by a combination of end-times views and a truncated view of culture, when mixed with this rebel strain in our national story, lends an added impetus and strength to this notion of being, “counter-cultural.” The people in that world like to believe they are swimming against the stream.
However, the idea that American fundamentalism/evangelicalism is, “counter-cultural” may be one of the most incredible and self-deceptive myths in recent memory. It is something believed without a shred of evidence; we might compare it to believing we didn’t land on the moon or that the earth is flat.
The reason it is self-deceptive, and the reason it not only doesn’t have any influence on the culture, but instead reinforces it, is because it is the religious expression of that very culture. Fundamentalism/evangelicalism’s only challenge to the culture is to recognize their god, their view of Christianity, morality, and the Bible.
In other words, they are cool with pretty much everything else about the culture as far as the (classic)-liberal, western, democratic, capitalist, militarist, and purely American aspect to that culture/civilization/empire. They may quibble here and there with certain aspects of it, but it’s more about disliking the color of the drapes and carpet—the house however, the structure, in their view, is fine.
What they want is for that culture/civilization/empire to be, “Christian” in how they understand that term and in what they think it would then mean for a culture to reflect such. Their beef is that the culture was, “stolen” (false) from them, made to be secular (false), and that is the only reason they are upset.
For them, being, “counter-cultural” means trying to shame the, “secular,” or prove they are, “better,” than the secular by living piously: no drinking, smoking, profanity, (dancing?), R-rated movies, while adding alternative, “clean” contemporary music, movies, books, and television. Wow, that’ll show ‘em—eat that secular culture.
Thus, counter-cultural turns out to be the exact same culture, just scrubbed clean. It is the exact same culture, just one with a religious gloss and one that, frankly, doesn’t seem to want a culture much different from what other religious fundamentalists want. In their minds, being, “counter-cultural” just sort of means returning to 1950, which tells us much regarding what they think of people of color, women, sexuality, and difference in general.
A truly counter-cultural attempt would mean bringing everything into question and under judgement—starting with ourselves. It would mean challenging the reigning paradigm of capitalism, nationalism, patriarchy, consumerism, liberal democracy, militarism, and the American myth. It would mean addressing, deeply, the history of racism, sexism, and violence at the heart of the American experiment.
It would mean challenging the modern political Left and Right, both the Democrat and Republican parties, and the entire political structure, especially in their deep relation to, and reliance upon, corporate and wealthy donor money. It would mean challenging both religious fundamentalism and secular, atheistic, scientism, which means challenging fundamentalism in general—since they both are the result of the same sensibility and history.
It would mean taking the Sermon on the Mount seriously, not only personally, but as a community. It would mean actually loving our enemies and pursuing peace, even if it meant losing or not getting our way. It would mean sharing our resources in radical ways that far surpass what is possible through free markets, state taxation or redistribution. It would mean living in harmony with the environment (creation), even if that meant a loss of material wealth, cheap goods, and personal convenience.
It would mean a radical openness to the, “other,” the stranger, and those different from ourselves, to the extent we placed their needs above our own. It would mean giving up an, “America First” or a Christianity-first, or a, my-tribe-first mentality. It would mean taking up a, the first will be last and the last first mentality instead, where we are willing to give up our place in the world if it means others might thrive, flourish, and be saved.
Utopian? Unrealistic? Naive? Too radical? Probably. Do I live like this? Nope. Does that change anything I’ve written? I don’t think so. Most of us know what the ethical thing to do is, we just don’t do it. I think a true counter-culturalism would need to encompass the above to be true to the Christian narrative and faith.
There is a deep love, an extravagant giving away of one’s self, at the heart of the Christian faith, that is far more radical than anything we can imagine. Most western cultures after 400 A.D. have been attempts to avoid that radical nature, while doing their best to pay lip service to it. It’s what helps us sleep at night.
So yeah, that term you keep throwing around, “counter-cultural”—I don’t think it means what you think it means.
I have a Patreon Page—please consider supporting my writing.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In