when revolutions become cool

There is a currently a debate going on at theJesusManifesto.com in regards to Peter Rollins up coming United States Pub Tour. Peter Rollins replied numerous times in the comments at the JesusManifesto and also on his own blog here. Kester Brewin has also chimed in here.

While there have been numerous comments, resolve and mends between the parties, there still seems to be something that was touched on that was lost in the discussion. {update: Mark Van Steenwyk added a second post updating his position, speaking in more general terms and keeping to his original thought of  disconnect between thought & action.} While I believe Peter Rollins (though I haven’t met with him personally) to be authentically passionate and that he truly believes in what he teaches, there is something that happens in the translation between him and me (or any other person). So let me be clear, the trouble with the failure of revolutionary language happens when we co-opt it for ourselves, ultimately commoditifying it.

I had to opportunity to hear Peter Rollins speak this summer at a conference. I think it is this kind of experience that Mark Van Steenwyk might have in the back of his mind when he is leery of the coming tour. This conference was filled with a bunch of yuppies (myself included) who would spend hundreds of dollars for a couple of days of listening to a few guys talk, while tweeting & blogging on our iphones and macbook pros. How different and radical are we as a whole? Counter-culture quickly becomes becomes the next trend, simply making it to a commoditified choice. My greatest fear and sadness is getting this sense that emergent is cool and trendy. While Peter Rollins might truly be radical, I can comfortably listen to him or read his books, while never changing—all the while thinking of myself as radical because I read radical authors.

I have shyed away from much of the emergent ‘conversation’ because of the fear of the hipsterness to it. I know I am not the only one with these reservations, as Jake has spoken about this before, here.

I see myself being a part of a generation where we are full of overselves. Everyone loves to be hipster and ‘express themselves’. I think there is a huge lie within the culture that is telling us we have to be cool. While my experience is that we are a unreliable people, I can’t depend upon the majority of folks my age. We can’t make plans beyond the growl of our stomachs most of the time. Why should I put any faith in a generation who is self-indulgent & narcissistic; that’s not revolutionary.

One of my worries is the true relevance of all of this. Is the whole post-modern push behind emergent theology/philosophy simply giving educated middle class white people a faith that they can confidently hold because they see it as being cool? If that is the case, then it truly is simply neo-liberal theology. Do you remember the liberal theology of the early twentieth century? They tried to make a faith that could be held by those of culture while not having to give up other cultural ideologies. Many would say that, that was the beginning of the fall for mainline protestantism, they sold out and they haven’t been able to recover ever since.

I just read a read a review of Philip Clayton’s Transforming Christian Theology, over at pomomusings.com. In describing the book, Adam talks about how Philip Clayton is transforming his theology from abstract-scholarly to practical-transformative. This seems to be essential to me, all this great post-modern philosophy/theology is only as good as it transforms lives.

So my question, what if emergent wasn’t cool any more or worse it became the norm. What if we took the insurrection to the share cropper or the day labourer—would they care what Zizek has to say about how God is dead and everything depends on us?