![\"\"](\"http:\/\/dminlgp.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/03\/authentic-stamp.jpg\")
<\/a>We\u2019ve wandered through nationalism, Puritanism, evangelicalism, capitalism, and consumerism (with some dabbling in fascism, socialism, and Catholicism). Our readings suggest those are not mutually exclusive terms, but concepts and realities that weave throughout one another. If we think of our readings this semester as one long text, The Rebel Sell<\/em> seems to fit nicely as a sequel to our introduction to consumer culture in Miller\u2019s and Cavanaugh\u2019s texts. Whereas Miller and Cavanaugh introduce us to mainstream consumerism, Heath & Potter suggest that the inverse (or back door), the countercultural idea, is still consumerism (and the dominant driver, at that).<\/p>\nI am not ready to agree with Heath & Potter fully. They often appear to set up the countercultural idea as a straw man, and speak in hyperbole.[1]<\/a> As I read, I felt as if they see every issue besetting our nation (and Canada) today as caused or shaped by the counterculture. Heath & Potter suggest that within our consumer culture, the countercultural idea is actually dominant over \u201cmainstream society.\u201d Or at least it imagines itself to be (yes, I personified it). I\u2019m not convinced that all ethical\/environmental purchases fit with their critique of the countercultural idea that consumerism is based on social identity. Personally, much of what I buy (or don\u2019t buy) is not public or posted on social media, and is done with the motivation to honor God\u2019s people and God\u2019s creation. I see it as faithfulness, and not mutually exclusive of government regulation. I was also frustrated with their dismissal of early Christians\u2019 \u201creinterpretations\u201d of Jesus\u2019 death and \u201cresurrection\u201d, likening them to residents of Plato\u2019s cave; and pigeonholing today\u2019s Christians as waiting around for Christ to get us out of here.[2]<\/a><\/p>\n That being said, I do believe their argument generally holds water. Countercultural rebels resist institutional structures, boundaries, and rules, so products and experiences are easily Let me give an example from within the church. Giving voice to the countercultural idea, Heath & Potter suggest the church is viewed with suspicion, part of mainstream society, a bureaucratic institution. They argue, \u201cpriests and ministers are\u2026 especially unsuited to the spiritual demands of the modern world. They can\u2019t resolve conflicts between individuals and institutions because they represent the very institutions that are thought to be causing the problems in the first place. If the Church teaches morality, but morality is nothing but a system of repressive rules and regulations, then the Church has nothing to offer.\u201d[4]<\/a> When I first read that, I resisted agreeing with it. But as I chewed on it more, I relented. If their hypothesis is accurate, it supports the trend in the American church towards the \u201cjuvenilization\u201d of the church; that is, \u201cthe process by which the religious beliefs, practices, and developmental characteristics of adolescents become accepted as appropriate for adults.\u201d [5]<\/a> According to the author of Juvenilization of the American Church<\/em>, Thomas Bergler, \u201cyouth-friendly versions of the faith\u201d were created to contextualize (my word) the gospel for young people in the 1950s.[6]<\/a> What unintentionally emerged, however, were not \u201crelevant\u201d youth groups in \u201ctraditional\u201d churches, but \u201cyouth and adults [alike] embracing immature versions of the faith.\u201d[7]<\/a><\/p>\n This evening, I attended our church\u2019s Ash Wednesday service, and was, of course, processing this week\u2019s reading. I think the service\u2019s goal was to say, \u201cthis ain\u2019t your daddy\u2019s church; we are cool, hipster.\u201d We stood as a group in the entryway of the church, singing \u201cme & Jesus\u201d songs with the lights low, led by a guitarist and caj\u00f3n player. The leader prayed, \u201cGod, we just come to you tonight to just worship you\u2026\u201d Our instructions were then to move amongst stations throughout the building on our own: \u201cthe only rules are\u2026 there are no rules.\u201d Each station was an individualized interaction: scripture appeared on a monitor, we\u2019d wash our hands or mold some playdoh, and move at our own pace. [When I chose to visit the ashes station, I wondered if I\u2019d be placing the ashes on my own forehead. Thankfully, one of our ministers served that role]. I finally ended by visiting the \u201ccommunion station\u201d, to rip and dip the bread into the juice on my own, just me and Jesus. It was completely opposite from traditional Episcopal and other high-church Ash Wednesday services I\u2019ve previously attended. Bergler might explain the juvenilization phenomena as a desire to contextualize the faith but inadvertently practicing poor theology, whereas Heath & Potter would approach it as a countercultural commodification of the mainstream religious institution. I don\u2019t think those explanations need to be mutually exclusive.<\/p>\n I imagine many other examples could be shared to show how the countercultural idea has shaped our churches in North America. And perhaps Heath\u2019s & Potter\u2019s theory might explain why North American churches have seen a decline in membership and attendance: we\u2019re viewed as being too mainstream institutional (and attempting to be cool & hip doesn\u2019t seem to be effective at drawing millennials)[8]<\/a>. Heath & Potter\u2019s argument suggests that, while the countercultural idea has dominated and driven consumerism, it is actually a fallacy that can\u2019t support itself. Their alternative is to suggest that social norms, institutional organizations, and regulations are actually useful and necessary.[9]<\/a> They conclude, \u201ccivilization is built upon our willingness to accept rules and to curtail the pursuit of our individual interest out of deference to the needs and interests of other.\u201d[10]<\/a> In other words, the role of the institutional church is invaluable for a viable culture.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n [1]<\/a> One example: \u201cThe greatest innovation of the counterculture came with the suggestion that there was some unifying thread to all these [Native American] cultures\u201d (272). Really, the greatest?<\/p>\n [2]<\/a> Joseph Heath and Andrew Potter, The Rebel Sell: How the Counterculture Became Consumer Culture<\/em>, (Chichester: Capstone, 2006), 8, 332.<\/p>\n [3]<\/a> Ibid., 187.<\/p>\n [4]<\/a> Ibid., 265.<\/p>\n [5]<\/a>\u00a0When Are We Going to Grow Up? The Juvenilization of American Christianity<\/a>\u00a0by Thomas Bergler<\/p>\n [6]<\/a> Ibid. Here\u2019s a brief description by Bergler: \u201cThe house lights go down. Spinning, multicolored lights sweep the auditorium. A rock band launches into a rousing opening song. \u2018Ignore everyone else, this time is just about you and Jesus,\u2019 proclaims the lead singer. The music changes to a slow dance tune, and the people sing about falling in love with Jesus. A guitarist sporting skinny jeans and a soul patch closes the worship set with a prayer, beginning, \u2018Hey God \u2026\u2019 The spotlight then falls on the speaker, who tells entertaining stories, cracks a few jokes, and assures everyone that \u2018God is not mad at you. He loves you unconditionally.\u2019<\/p>\n After worship, some members of the church sign up for the next mission trip, while others decide to join a small group where they can receive support on their faith journey.\u201d<\/p>\n [7]<\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n [8]<\/a>\u00a0Washington Post: Want Millennials Back in the Pews? Stop trying to make church ‘cool’<\/a>\u00a0by Rachel Held Evans<\/p>\n<\/a>marketed to them to feed the idea that they aren\u2019t conforming (the worst label for a rebel). We all want to stand out as different, as special and authentic, so we look for the social markers (\u00e0 la Miller) that help us stand out, feeding the consumer culture.[3]<\/a><\/p>\n