Saturday, May 13, 2006
(12:35 PM) | Anonymous:
On 'Revolutionary' Language in Contemporary Evangelical Youth Culture.
Having grown up Evangelical, but hardly in a pure manner, I still get the urge to listen to what those folks are talking about over there. Just as Old is not impressed with the American Religious Left's use of nation-specific covenant language, I'm not all that impressed with Emergent and other self-described post-modern Christian's use of the rhetoric of revolution. It's not exactly co-equal with the academic faux-Left's use, but it does share some interesting correlations. They both appear to believe that "getting the message out" about injustice will automatically bring about a change in practice. Both appear to me mainly upper-to-middle middle class white folk. Neither apparently knows too much about the history of actual revolutionary movements (their mixed character, for one, and their own contradiction of place within those movements). The use of revolutionary rhetoric singles precisely the cure to having to take revolutionary action! For, if one is already revolutionary by virtue of their belief, what demands that revolutionary action be taken.This rhetorically-based revolution shares with the Emergent church it's liberal respect for the sacraments within orthodox churches (Anglican/Episcopal, Roman, and Eastern). They think that sacraments are a great post-modern way of participating in the common life of the church, without actually having to believe in the baggage of the theological content of the sacraments themselves. They are often described as having great symbolism, when, of course, the Eucharist is not really the best symbolism at all! The Emergent movement allows one to say clever things about the Eucharist as the highest Christian act - a truly revolutionary act!
Was Jesus a revolutionary? Well, sure, why not. I'll be one of those naive Marxists that champions the early Christian church (with Engels) as a place of a different kind of revolution (a more rhizomatic one perhaps). Does being a Christian mean that you are participating in a revolutionary movement? Hardly. At least not if one is actually practicing a form of religious of Democratic Socialist party membership. If being revolutionary simply means becoming a youth pastor and making the Christian gospel more relevant to contemporary society. These things are not revolutionary in the least and they merely form the liberal component to the rise in war-language in Republican Evangelical denominations.
Not to say that there isn't some kind of hope here. I'm fascinated by how passionate former evangelicals are when they get involved with Leftist politics. They really believe in this shit! Finally! And, for some reason, they take seriously the promise of revolution. I can't deny that this is the reason why Emergent Christians are so drawn to this language - just as they are drawn to the good shit in the sacraments, they are drawn to the beauty of revolution. They are drawn to orgasm. It's the old Derridean line about the promise of the to-come of all good words. Not that they can't be truly revolutionary potential in things like eating together, but in so far as they don't believe in the pure shit of these actions they fail to actualize any of this.
