Culture and Counterculture

Since four students were killed in violence at Kent State University in the wake of the U. S. incursion into Cambodia in the spring of 1970, radical turmoil in the universities seems to have subsided. For many this is comforting evidence of the increasing preoccupation of American youth with the inner life of the spirit, rather than with the world of politics and action. And yet—as we are told elsewhere in this issue by the director of the FBI—“this does not mean that youthful extremism, hatred of democratic institutions and the belief [in] violence … have suddenly disappeared.”

“A policeman’s lot is not a happy one,” Gilbert and Sullivan remind us, and the words must have a wry sound for Mr. Hoover, the unchallenged éminence grise of law enforcement in the United States. Under eight presidents, his FBI has earned a reputation for competence and virtual incorruptibility without resorting to the patterns of cruelty, terror, and repression that are the order of the day for state security services in many nations.

One of the reasons why such abuses are rare exceptions rather than the rule in the United States is the fact that during most of our history, despite many internal conflicts, there has never been a large body of dissenters seeking the complete overthrow of the American system. Those who turned against it outright could expect little popular support, and the cooperation of the general public with the police was the almost unquestioned rule wherever a threat to national security existed. Such unquestioning nationalism was part of our culture. It could have played into the hands of a repressive national government, and there were times when this possibility may have appeared imminent. Today, however, the opposite attitude is spreading: more and more people now routinely refuse to cooperate with law-enforcement officials, especially when they think the persons being sought are under investigation for their opinions or for “political crimes.” Yet probably only a few among those who play at being “revolutionary radicals” really want, or even clearly visualize, those things that violent revolutions have always brought—blood in the streets, mass executions, arbitrary tyranny for years or even decades. Why then, is there this countercultural mood of “radical chic,” of playing the revolutionary game, among so many who really have no clear conception of the kind of fury they may unleash?

In his bibliography “The Literature of Countercultural Religion” (page 14), James R. Moore gives us some insight into the problem—perhaps more than he realizes. “Students nowadays,” he writes, “are radically attached to commitments they regard as virtually revealed.” Therefore, he suggests, “biblical Christianity, like other religious options, can be presented boldly as a legitimate, credible, and in fact necessary ideology for the foment of the moment.” To the extent that this suggests recruiting Christianity to bolster the ideology of political radicalism, this thinking is no more acceptable than that which defended the divine right of kings. Quite apart from this, it is true that the counterculture about which Moore writes is the spiritual and intellectual milieu in which many of our fellow men exist. For missionaries to the unevangelized tribes of twentieth-century America, learning something of the countercultural mentality is a prerequisite to communicating the Gospel to a large segment of our population.

Over and above the task of merely understanding something of the counterculture in order to communicate, it does contain elements worth heeding in its repudiation of the Establishment with its affluence, impersonal technology, and ever-more-extensive programming of human needs and responses. But there is more to the counterculture than that. Moore’s bibliography refers to some of its products as “gnostic.” The Gnostic movement of the early Christian centuries rejected the whole created order and the Creator Himself, and sought salvation through a secret knowledge available only to the elite.

The Christian should read with discernment. Moore offers us a smorgasbord of “gnostic” writers and teachings, but his descriptive comments unfortunately include far more adulation than critical evaluation. He himself exemplifies the superficiality of analysis of which he accuses Charles Reich, offering us foregone conclusions by adopting radical clichés: “the Kent and Jackson State massacres,” for instance.

We should never deny that a non-Christian may give us, as Moore tells us that Charles Reich does, “a valuable piece of insight.” But we may wonder about the wisdom of listing three books by Marcuse as compared to forty-one pages of Francis Schaeffer, and no specific title at all for Jacques Ellul.

There is a small but fashionable movement among intellectuals who call themselves “radical Christians”—perhaps an unfortunate choice of words, since the term was coined by T. J. J. Altizer for those who share his belief that God is finally and irrevocably dead since the Crucifixion. By it they mean that they seek a transformation of society from the roots up, according to the “revolutionary” program of the Gospel. When one coopts catchwords such as “radical” and “revolutionary” to use them in grammatically legitimate but unfamiliar ways, one runs the risk of spreading more confusion than enlightenment. To the extent that such “radical Christians” want to take over the analysis of Marx, Marcuse, Reich, et al. and plug in a biblical Christian answer to the problems they pose, they are playing a fascinating but very risky game. We need some knowledge of such authors, because of their wide appeal, but—precisely because of their wide appeal—we should be aware that they are very much in the service of “the god of this world.” Not to read any of them would be bad, but to read them without discernment, not recognizing in them propagandists for their own world-view, would be worse.

We have often noted that if one accepts the presuppositions of a modernist theologian like Bultmann, one cannot avoid accepting his conclusions. Bultmann is a skillful scholar and has fascinating insights. But the presuppositions are wrong.

Let us not ignore the countercultural prophets, as though they were saying nothing. But let us not fail to recognize that underlying the “insights” is a commitment to an apostate, anti-biblical world-view and a determined opposition to historic Christianity. Let us be aware of the presuppositions out of which they speak; we cannot simply Christianize their utopias, for they have their own inner logic, and it tends inevitably toward the world of 1984.

Disclosing Campaign Donations

In our last issue we urged that more Christians contribute to political campaigns as part of a responsible exercise of citizenship. This would help limit the undue influence of special interests in law making and enforcing (see April 14 issue, page 25).

Another major way to curtail the influence of money upon legislation and justice is enforced disclosure of the sources and amounts of all sizable contributions. In some cases contributors of relatively small sums might be exposed to harassment from employers, union leaders, neighbors, even fellow church members, if their choice of candidates were made known. But certainly any person running for public office should willingly reveal the names of all whose contributions total more than a certain sum (say $1,000 for presidential elections). This would enable the press and other interested parties to use their influence to see that governmental decisions are made solely on the merits of each particular case, not as a specific reward for financial support.

It is said that if their contributions were known, some men and organizations of wealth would not give. Fine. This would make more likely the election of candidates who are able to gain a broad base of small contributors (especially as recent legislation limits the amount a man of wealth and his family can contribute to his own candidacy).

If America is to remain one of the few lands with competitive elections, and if we are to make improvements in our imperfect record of awarding contracts, making appointments, and administering justice without regard to the wealth and influence of the persons involved, we need this twofold change in our election process: disclosure of large gifts, and greatly increased numbers of small gifts.

A Harvest Of Hatred

At the interreligious conference on amnesty (see April 14 issue, page 39), a representative from the United Church of Canada read a statement attributing “the deaths of thousands of human beings and the wasting of an entire subcontinent” to “the American political and national ego.” Several self-described “refugees from the American political system,” who came down from Canada for the conference, described themselves as “the greatest force for anti-Americanism” among our northern neighbors.

We may question the propriety and usefulness of a Canadian churchman’s indulging in self-righteous denunciation of American policies. Canadians were not overwhelmingly edified when the late General de Gaulle pointed out some inequities in their own system. As to the “refugees,” fleeing “warlike” America, we could remind them that America let them out, and in the cases represented (not in all) lets them come and go at will—unlike these nations that style themselves “peace-loving” (= Communist).

These points would be valid. Yet there is something more to be said about all this bitterness and antagonism toward the United States. After World War II, this country was almost universally regarded as the citadel of democracy and the heartland of generosity. Of course, twenty-seven years of organized anti-American cold-war propaganda have done their bit to help turn that image into its opposite. But those same years have also witnessed a turning within the United States from the old, vaguely Christian national orientation to a hedonistic, materialistic humanism, hungry for profits, pleasure, and affluence. Many of the things the “refugees” say are true, if exaggerated.

How are we to get out of this impasse in which Americans are looked on as the new Nazis? We cannot suggest the imposition of a “humanistic” ethos by force and constant indoctrination, as Mao is doing in China. But we can, as individuals and congregations, search our hearts and attitudes in the light of Holy Scripture, and pray to God that he will free his Church from materialistic obsessions—i.e., from conformity to this world—by the renewal of our minds according to his Word (Rom. 12:2).

The Extent Of Religious Rights

The old pot labeled “anti-Semitism” is boiling again. This time it was heated up by Dean Francis Sayre of Washington Cathedral in a Palm Sunday sermon (see News, page 35). More heat came from the other side of the continent, San Francisco, where, as our news story has it, “the rabbis aren’t smiling” about the proselyting activities of a group called “Jews for Jesus” (see page 34).

Anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism are not necessarily the same thing: the latter has to do with a political fact, the existence of the state of Israel as the Jewish homeland; the former concerns people, the Jews. One can be anti-Zionist and not anti-Semitic. Generally, however, anti-Zionism has anti-Semitic undercurrents that go beyond simply political matters into real hatred of Jews as Jews.

Anti-Semitism is always wrong. This does not mean that the state of Israel is above criticism for its political actions any more than any other country is. Nor does it mean, in our opinion, that Israel can hold all the territory it seized in the 1967 war and still hope for a peaceful solution to the Middle East dilemma.

We would like to think that Dean Sayre’s sermon was not intended the way it came through. Whether it was or not, no one should suppose that he was speaking for or is representative of his or any other denomination or of the Christian community generally. His would be a minority viewpoint.

The activities of “Jews for Jesus” have called forth a hot response from Jewish rabbis. This is not surprising. A Jew who becomes a follower of Jesus is, to the adherents of Judaism, religiously apostate. Adherents of Judaism admit they are intolerant at this point. They should be.

Evangelicals are likewise intolerant of apostates in the Christian community who deny the deity of Christ and his vicarious atonement. Having said this, however, we insist on religious freedom for all. This includes two very important points: anyone has the right to “cross over” from one religion to another, and every group has an inalienable right to propagate its beliefs and to seek to make converts.

We hope both Jewish and Gentile Christians everywhere will do all they can to convince followers of Judaism that Jesus is the Messiah and that they should receive him as their Saviour and Lord. Jews have an equal right to seek converts from Christianity to Judaism. Freedom of religion is not operative if one cannot proclaim his beliefs openly in the market place. This does not mean that Christians have any right whatever to go to Jewish synagogues if they are not invited or if their presence as exponents of Christianity is forbidden. No one has a right to interrupt religious services of other groups or to speak in others’ sanctuaries if they do not want him to do so. But there are a hundred other ways to bear one’s witness.

There is no place in the Christian faith for hatred of another because he chooses some other religion. Christians should warn him of the serious consequences of his choice. But they should respect his personhood and his right to his own beliefs. They should never be anti-Semitic. What they should be is pro-Christian.

It Is Better

As the political hunting season moves toward its distant climax, will a single political figure be left untouched by “revelations,” disclosures, innuendo, and outright slander intended to discredit him in the eyes of the voters for the benefit of his opponent? As the elections approach, more and more members of the general public will tend, rightly or wrongly, to echo Mark Antony’s ironic comment on those who had opposed Julius Caesar: “So are they all, all honorable men.…”

Like the Cynic Diogenes, we may despair of ever finding an honest man, and thus do an injustice to those in public life who really are trying not to walk in the counsel of the wicked. In the nature of things, it is inevitable that our sense of frustration and futility will mount as 1972 wears on. Therefore it is all the more important to remind ourselves of what the Psalmist says, “It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to put confidence in man” (Ps. 118:8), for, he elaborates in a different context, “when [man’s] breath departs he returns to his earth; on that very day his plans perish” (Ps. 146:3, 4).

In The Political Illusion, the French Reformed legal scholar Jacques Ellul warns against thinking that any political change can radically affect the human condition, which is rendered desperate not by bad social planning, overpopulation, industrial pollution, or other apparent causes, but by idolatry—by the fact that men put that which is not God in the place of God.

Our idolatrous confidence may be placed in the intellect, in money, in modern medicine, in eugenic planning, in behavioral engineering, in any one of those thousand tangible and intangible things at which men grasp in the hope, always disappointed and yet always reviving, that one of them will satisfy human longings and give content and purpose to man’s life.

The list of human illusions and delusions is too long for the Bible, or even a much longer book, to catalogue and refute; some very ancient ones, as well as some that seem new, will be presented to us in 1972 (and in every subsequent year). Faced with that psychological certainty, we can be thankful for God’s answer, never more important than in a day when vain hopes are being hawked in every marketplace: “It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to put confidence in man.”

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.