[Insert Witty Title Here]
When someone says counterculture, I tend to think of the yogurt shop down the street that markets healthy frozen cups of goodness. There is also CounterCulture Coffee and endless CounterCulture vegan and vegetarian restaurants. What is this word “counterculture?”
Miriam Webster defines counterculture as, “a culture with values and customs that are very different from and usually opposed to those accepted by most of society.”[1]
Dictionary.com gives this explanation: “The culture and lifestyle of those people, especially among the young, who reject or oppose the dominant values and behavior of society.”[2]
My favorite, Urban Dictionary, describes counterculture as this: “Any group of people whose beliefs, values, styles, and attitudes differ from that of the prevailing culture. Counter-culture began with the hippie movement back in the late 60’s and 70’s. In today’s society, counter-culture is most often seen in the alternative subcultures. The gothic, punk, emo, skater, raver subcultures are all examples of present-day counter-cultures.”[3]
A quick search via the internet gives counterculture the appearance of being good and good for you. Vegans and vegetarians. Coffees and yogurts. Counterculture seems pleasant and practical and can lead to healthy lifestyles. But are they simply acts of consumerism? Are they the latest marketing scheme to sell products and create financial gain? Or, is the health food craze just another “rebellion” in a long line of fads, like environmentalism, feminism, non-Western medicine, and more?
In The Rebel Sell: How the Counterculture Became Consumer Culture by Joseph Heath and Andrew Potter, the Canadian duo deflate the dreamlike notions that counterculturists hold about the effectiveness of their “rebellion” against society. The authors make a solid case for consumerism being motivated by competitiveness rather than conformity, while pointing out the hypocrisies and shortcomings of “alternative” lifestyles.
And how in the world does any of this relate to ministry? As Christians across the board, are we not called to be the epitome of counterculture? Or at the least, are we supposed to be? Jesus was perhaps the ultimate rebel, with His teachings to love neighbors and forgive those who trespass against us. As Christians, as His followers, we are called to live for God in an ungodly world. That in itself is counterculture. Instead of spouting hate with our tongues, our arms will reach out with love. Instead of flocking to the darkness, we are to shine a light of hope. Instead of fearing the unknown, we walk in faith.
As the centuries have progressed, worship styles changed, Catholics and Protestants differed, and interpretations divided the masses. For example, in the last half-century, a distinct counterculture of contemporary worship has emerged. Guitars and drums replaced organs and pulpits. Robes and stolls were tossed aside for untucked shirts, jeans, spiky hair and black-rimmed glasses. This group came with big messages, tons of books, and long, expository sermons. While they did not necessarily come to change Christianity, they sought to go against the norm, repackage the message, and attract new followers. Instead of being seen as a different outlet, it was instead viewed by many as divisive.
Just recently in my neighborhood, there has been yet another rebellion. The “simple” church has taken hold. Designated by the simplicity of its name, The Simple Church exists for those of who are tired of religion getting in the way of knowing God. They exist to make a place for all walks of life to come together for support, relationships, help, and to answer questions about a God who loves us. They state they “do not judge here; they ‘simply’ say, come as you are. No more red tape to get to God. It is simple, because that is who we are…”[4]
How many more of these church brands will we go through? While I understand that one size of worship or church does not fit all, I also have come to observe how the different churches of my community are competing for members. Ideally, evangelicalism could be the answer to the collective action problem[5]and the positional good problem[6]. Christianity gives meaning and purpose to human existence. It offers a way through and out of the human dilemma. Likewise, the very basis of Christianity is the fostering of unselfishness, theoretically eliminating the positional good problem. However, the current trend of church “branding” seems to run contrary to overcoming these problems. In our attempt to package Christianity as hip, cool, alternative or counterculture, we run the risk of falling into the same consumerism trap.
So how will we break this cycle? Heath and Potter’s main argument is the countercultural idea of “throwing out the system” is not only unrealistic, but also hinders reasonable political aspirations and creates disregard for valid social norms that promote law, order, and prosperity. However, the authors offer no solution to the problem, only more examples. From the perspective of this student, perhaps it is ineffectual to focus on comparisons of cultural and countercultural philosophies. Perhaps we would be better served to concentrate our energies and efforts on the spirit and substance of Christ’s teachings. Similarly, the conflicting attitudes toward western versus non-western medicine might be seen as less significant than focusing on the effectiveness of particular treatments. Eastern acupuncture treatments may be preferable to Western anesthesia under some circumstances, and Western treatments may win out under other circumstances. Rather than a wholesale adoption of a cultural (or counter-cultural) philosophy, would it not be better to analyze and adopt the best medical practices, regardless of their source?
Is this a possible answer? Could the “rebelliousness” of the counterculture movement cause its participants to miss some (or all) of the substance of what they seek to accomplish? Could those who resist countercultural changes be resisting for the sake of resisting, rather than because of any real invalidity to the proposed change? Perhaps the answer is not in the “movement” or the resistance to the movement, but rather on the reality of the underlying message.
Reference:
Heath, Joseph and Potter, Andrew. The Rebel Sell: How the Counterculture Became Consumer Culture. West Sussex, England: Capstone Publishing Limited, 2006.
[1] “Counterculture,” http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/counterculture.
[2] “Counterculture,” http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/counterculture.
[3] “Counterculture,” http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=counter-culture.
[4] Check out their website at http://www.thesimplechurch.tv.
[5] The “collective action problem” may be described as the tragedy of the commons, or a problem in which everyone would like to see a particular outcome but no one has the incentive to do what is necessary in order to bring it about.
[6] The “positional good problem” is the idea that humans have a deep need to know where they stand in society, to distinguish themselves from others as part of their identity.
About the Author
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.