…and that is a problem.
There is something about dissenting, sticking to the man, and subverting social norms that is strangely alluring. Like other sexy things subversion can be distracting and dangerous, and I believe this is especially true amongst people my age. Subversion and dissent have their place, to be sure, but they are always a means, never an end. My fear is that dissent and subversion are often made to be an “end”, an end that can distract from ends that have value.
By way of example…
As I blogged about earlier in the week, I had the chance to go listen to Stanley Hauerwas lecture on Monday night. Hauerwas is a prominent figure in the world of theological ethics. The lecture was outstanding, and I left with much to chew on. However, I also left someone disheartened by what I sensed was the most memorable part of the evening for many in attendance based on the conversations I overheard (I should note that there is not necessarily anything wrong with remembering a line like the one I am about to share. If that line is remembered at the expense of the rest of the content, that is what’s unfortunate).
During the Q and A period, Hauerwas, who is known for having a sharp tongue, was talking about preaching when he said, “If your preacher starts a sentence with, ‘My ten year-old son said,’ then you know the rest if going to be bulls__t.” That statement drew lots of laughter because, well, it was funny and unexpected. He said that such sentences usually are more about giving advice about how to have an easier life than they are about proclaiming the Word of God. I don’t entirely agree with that generalization, but at the same time I will admit that it is, in most cases, true. The general point that Hauerwas was making, namely that preachers should feel an intense responsibility when preaching, is a good one. Preachers should know that they are bringing the words of God, not merely life advice. Those are important, accurate, words, and that statement I quoted above proved to be one of the most memorable of the evening.
For the wrong reasons.
In my estimation, the statement was memorable not because Hauerwas delivered a prophetic word about preaching, but rather because he said, “bulls__t”. That was “cool” and “funny”, and it appealed to that part of us that thinks subversion is irresistibly sexy. And I fear it distracted many in the audience from the importance of the point of that statement and the many important points that he made throughout his lecture. I understand that shock value and subversion are powerful rhetorical devices, I only wish we could see that they point to a more important end.
Being subversive is not necessarily a bad thing, as the gospel itself is a subversive. The gospel, as Hauerwas stated in his lecture, allows the Church to become a radical alternative to war, and in this way it subverts the violent ethos of our world. Similarly the gospel confronts the notion that the State is our God, or that we are to be defined by what we own, or that we should seek vengeance against those who harm us. Those are all wonderful truths that should be constantly celebrated and never taken for granted! The gospel beautifully subverts many of our cultures most destructive values, and that is part of why I love it and am challenged by it.
But gospel subversion is a constructive subversion. It points to the glory of God, and seeks to join God in the work of manifesting the Kingdom here on Earth. It forms us into partakers of a new reality, and it subverts in order to unify. It is not an end unto itself. Too often I have been captivated by subversion for the sake of ’sticking to the man’ because, well, subversion is sexy and I’m young and stupid.
So I suppose I will end by encouraging you to join me in examining your own heart and the subversive tendencies therein and asking yourself the question, “what is this pointing to?” because subversion is a wonderful means with the potential to point to God’s glory, but it is a terribly destructive end.
2 Comments
November 4, 2009 at 2:37 pm
i think the danger is that we are drawn to want to be subversive and that distorts our message. when che guevara becomes a pop icon then he is immobilized as a revolutionary. but when someone genuinely lives out their beliefs, without caring for norms and appearances, then they are truly subversive in dialectical opposition to the trend-obsessed culture we are surrounded by.
November 4, 2009 at 2:39 pm
very well said.