Ways of Resistance

At Ways of Resistance I’ve tried to cover various topics–the ones that interest me most–primarily by wading through popular opinion and forming (at least within myself) some sort of resolution to resist practices and notions that are destructive to people and God’s world. In many ways I’ve come to think of myself as an amateur radical, fumbling my way towards the kind of community that embodies this ethic and incites creativity and conspires alternatives.

Wendell Berry’s clear language and beet-red provocations have helped me along the way more than I probably understand. The quote below is from his essay Compromise, Hell! (2004) and needs only a question to make its connection to my mission obvious: Are we radical enough?

We are destroying our country–I mean our country itself, our land. This is a terrible thing to know, but it is not a reason for despair unless we decide to continue the destruction. If we decide to continue the destruction, that will not be because we have no other choice. This destruction is not necessary. It is not inevitable, except that by our submissiveness we make it so.

We Americans are not usually thought to be a submissive people, but of course we are. Why else would we allow our country to be destroyed? Why else would we be rewarding its destroyers? Why else would we all–by proxies we have given to greedy corporations and corrupt politicians–be participating in its destruction? Most of us are still too sane to piss in our own cistern, but we allow others to do so, and we reward them for it. We reward them so well, in fact, that those who piss in our cistern are wealthier than the rest of us.

How do we submit? By not being radical enough. Or by not being thorough enough, which is the same thing.

This last weekend I attended a Christian Charismatic conference. The guest preacher was a young, dynamic, and passionate man from New Jersey. His voice, expressions, and body language held our complete attention and paved the way for the delivery of a brilliant message.

Without telling you more background stories about him, I’ll give you an example of what I mean (though this is one of those stories where I can already tell “you had to be there!” will likely make sense). The dramatic tension began fairly quickly–and with the power of a well-versed provocateur. Perhaps the heat of his sermon was expected. The people, as far as I could tell, wanted an experience with Passion that night. Then, more or less suddenly, the man stopped his teaching in the middle of his notes and, with a single-minded focus, directed those who had “backslidden” to stand where they were as a way to admit their sin before God (and, obviously, before the congregation!). Then he made the call even more specific and called folks who were looking at pornography and having sex outside of marriage to stand. As people began to stand, his pleas became more visceral. His words and exhortations shot into the air like a canon and then rang across the room until the next time he fired convictions out from his spirit. He refrained, for the most part, from shouting but the intensity of convictions was palpable and unwavering. To be quite honest, whenever he looked in my direction, I felt his eyes as though they could see inside my head: all my anxiety and shame. He explained that his call wasn’t like the old school holiness call (mired with legalism and external restraints but no intimacy), but was a call from his heart (and God’s inspiration), leading unto loving relationship with Jesus.

Now, as a note about the context, this invitation to stand and then come forward for prayer was preceded by a “rant”–the best word I can think of–which derided “young people” because they “voted for death” (i.e., electing Democratic candidate, Barack Obama, who has vocally supported legal forms of abortion). He was also tough on today’s Christian seminaries for compromising into liberalism, a move which he described as a “poison” to our faith.

My only problem with what he said and did that night was that he (perhaps unwittingly) simply regurgitated the popular conservative agenda on personal morality and religion. I asked my friend Quinton during the “you voted for death” comment whether the preacher meant that McCain or Obama was “death” (even though I knew perfectly well he meant Obama). Both candidates, after all, had vowed to support killing: one through war and one through abortion. And actually, both candidates had resolved to kill our enemies–rationalizing the killing of civilians, not to mention Christians, with words like “democracy,” “freedom,” and “peace.”

I also wondered why the preacher did not publicly name a more comprehensive list of the sins which have plagued our culture (Christians or and non-Christians alike). For example, why not ask everyone who has purchased new items of clothing from child labor/sweatshop operations (e.g., Gap, Banana Republic, and Old Navy) to bravely stand up and admit their sin. I think Wendell Berry gets it right when he says:

“Conservative individualism strongly supports “family values” and abominates lust. But it does not dissociate itself from the profits accruing from the exercise of lust (and, in fact, of the other six deadly sins), which it encourages in its advertisements. The ‘conservatives’ of our day understand pride, lust, envy, anger, covetousness, gluttony, and sloth as virtues when they lead to profit or to political power. Only as unprofitable or unauthorized personal indulgences do they rank as sins, imperiling salvation of the soul, family values, and national security.”

(The Way of Ignorance: And Other Essays)

Before I went to the charismatic event, I had come across this video produced by the Pentecostal & Charismatic Peace Fellowship. It has really stuck with me, especially given the season of consumerism we’re entering, and has proven more relevant still after having listened to the preacher’s message. Please watch it and then, like our traditions tell us, stand with me and repent. Stand up with me and publicly confess our complicity in this world’s sin.

I guess I’m basically staging my own altar call/invitation. So, listen up (said with a smile on my face). Please do not dismiss sin, whatever the sin may be. It’s all deceitful and destructive. It can’t be divided up into personal and social categories. Not only are we compromised by it, but it makes us look sneaky and bad. I believe “hypocrite” was the word Jesus used.

So, my question is: Should Christians ever name names when talking about sin? If so, which ones should make the list?

I recently met up with the Jesus Center director, Bill Such, for a cup of joe and to chat about some of my favorite subjects. This is the second coffee conversation he and I have had since we were connected via our mutual friend Ryann earlier this year. After only a few conversations, I must confess, I like Bill very much–in no small part because of his ability to inspire some holy un-rest among Chico, California’s sedated middle-class.

At the tail-end of our conversation (which took place on election day, no less), I asked him why we (the established churches in Chico) don’t support more, both financially and with our lives, the kinds of programs he has started and will continue to bring to fruition. I mean, how can we spend so much energy and time and money on elections, for example, and then have nothing left to give when it comes to poverty and homelessness in Chico? He rightly told me that individual Christians actually do form a large base of the donations they receive, but that business folks and secular organizations/individuals also pick up a significant share. (Aside: one of the youth I used to work with really loved going to serve with me at the Jesus Center. He saved up his money for weeks and then gave more than what was required for him to participate. The fact that he was not a Christian (at all!) did not matter much for his motivation. His reasoning was much more concrete than that: after having been homeless, he wanted to give back to the community!) Perhaps the “secular” community actually keeps alive the work they do at the Jesus Center more than we think.

Bill made the point that the Jesus Center isn’t simply a place for folks who are hungry to eat food, but also a place where the community is engaged and, ultimately, is imagined differently. Rather than offering a specialized definition of what it is they do, Bill has attempted to assert a more holistic and radically-shaped mission: hospitality in the name of Jesus. The whole of the community, to make it plain, is involved in that, not simply the homeless. As Shane Claiborne has said, the way of Jesus offers liberation from the ghettos of wealth as well as the ghettos of poverty. It takes place through friendship and community, and, most obviously, through service to one another.

One of the most exciting new ideas Bill mentioned during our conversation had to do with employment and housing partnerships among community members. He dreamed that one day the folks who need a hand (but don’t have all the necessary paperwork or history or addresses) will be able to get connected with local apartment owners and employers/apprenticeships (all vouched for and subsidized through Jesus Center staff). I was literally stunned when he said that. For starters, what a completely revolutionary and subversive idea. How unlike the ordinary political and, dare I say, governmental approaches. I know there are similar programs available for, at the very least, our area’s youth (funded through our county governments) and those folks do a great job. An awesome job! But in order for that to happen, an enormous amount of red tape and rigmarole must take place. With Bill’s plan the local community funds the endeavor and, even better, gets to participate.

Sadly, however, it did occur to me that, given the fiscal budget of each Christian community in Chico, we could have easily funded this project already. This is the Big Elephant shitting on the carpet, my friends. I found myself asking, Why hasn’t this happened yet? Why haven’t we even thought of supporting this kind of economy (versus our blind allegiance to the consumer economy)? I think it has to do with imagination. Right now, our imaginations are captivated by youtube, NBC, and national voting. Never before in history has there been a culture so defined by mass media and the cult of imperial consumerism. If we weren’t given the options (on our voting day’s ballot) we apparently wouldn’t know how to embody the peculiar politics of Jesus. Kind of sad, don’t you think?

The more I think about it, Bill’s approach represents a completely different way to do church. Moreover, like I imply above, it’s a different way to go about politics. It is a body politic so to speak and it centers itself on the enemy-loving, self-sacrificing way of Jesus. This won’t go over well with folks who want America–”the Christian nation”–to be great. But the world and every kind of household within it seems to be urgently waiting for a response from Christians who seek the Gospel of the Kingdom–the true gospel of “hope,” “change,” “reform,” and “security”!

Like was already said, as a nation, we just got through spending an obscene amount of time, money, and energy both loving and hating national politics and its politicians. Frankly, it’s disgusting how little of those efforts will find their way into our local communities, not to mention into our debts or toward loving our enemies. And how shameful is it that our distinctive Christian imagination has lost its radical nature in the allure of totalizing politics, economics, and faith? I suspect the only way to get back our captivated imaginations is to re-member the peculiar Way of Jesus as local members in communities and places of faith. Perhaps then we won’t look for a savior on Capital Hill, but instead will look, with the folks at the Jesus Center, to the least among us. Perhaps, instead of wanting to elect a candidate, we’ll have an encounter with the difficult-to-elect God of grace, becoming rooted and secured and at home with our Commander-In-Chief and His peaceful Way.

Update: This post was republished over at Jesus Manifesto.