One of the regular critiques of Medieval Christendom is the way in which infant baptism became the method by which entire societies and whole nations of people were made Christian. There was little focus on discipleship or the formation of a Christian identity that posed any sort of challenge to the reigning powers. Within Christendom one was simply born into both the state and the Church and one revealed oneself to be a model Christian by being a model citizen. Naturally, those of us who live after Christendom have good reason to question such an understanding of Christian identity.
However, what we tend to miss is that this is essentially what Billy Graham did to American Christianity in the 20th century. Only Rev. Graham made it even easier. No ritual was required — all that one had to do was ask Jesus into one's heart in order to be a born again Christian. Not only that but being a good Christian was equated with being a good citizen. Christians were those committed to the morals and values of America. With such an understanding of Christianity there was little need for any sort of ongoing discipleship, identity formation or the practice of disciplines that build Christian virtues. Therefore, Billy could just travel from arena to arena and soon America was (yet again) a Christian nation.
The result of this was churches closely linked to social and political power full of people who didn't have a clue about what it meant to be a Christian. Consequently as the Christian gloss over the practice of socio-political power has become increasingly unnecessary these churches have discovered themselves to be impotent, uninteresting, and empty. Essentially Rev. Graham built God's house on the sand but, as Jesus said, when the storms came, it collapsed.
After Christendom's history of false baptisms the Church needs to return to a truer understanding of this sacrament. After all, one becomes a Christian not by having having Christ “in me” but by being in Christ. This is what baptism is about. One is baptised into Christ, and into Christ's body — the Church. Baptism, rightly understood, is seen as the act by which one becomes committed to the discipleship, the formation, and the discipline of the Church. Of course this is much more demanding than simply asking Jesus into one's heart — and I suspect it is the demands of discipleship (disguised as an aversion to ritual?) that have caused baptism to lose its significance in the contemporary Church. Yet it is crucial to recover the centrality of baptism. For, since it links the individual believer to Christ and his Church, it is a genuinely salvific act.
It should be emphasised that those who undergo this baptism cannot remain on intimate terms with socio-political powers. In baptism one becomes crucified with Christ — and Christ was crucified by the socio-political powers. Therefore, to try to wield such power seems like a violent contradiction to the Christian identity. It is baptism into the communal practice of cruciformity that is the true foundation of God's House.

The 'private man,' because 'thought is free,' is at liberty in his heart to think what he will, provided in public he exercise his right to remain silent.
~ William T. Cavanaugh
One can think whatever one wants to, so long as one continues to live within the world of the nation-state (or what Rowan Williams, in light of the increasing influence of corporate businesses, calls market-states).
This is why counter-cultural movements from the hippies to punk rockers, from culture-jammers to adbusters, will continually miss the point (cf. Heath and Potter). Being counter-cultural is not about emancipating the individual from an oppressive social structure. Indeed, as Cavanaugh so cogently argues, the nation-state is built upon the emancipation of the individual. With the birth of the individual (over the social group), the state becomes the social body in which individuals can operate and protect themselves and their property. All other social bodies are consumed by the state — Hobbes' “Leviathan” swallows all other social bodies leaving a population of self-disciplining individuals. For, as Foucault argues, once the only social connection that individuals have is to the state (a structure Foucault describes as a “Panopticon”) they will not need to be disciplined to stay in line. They will fall in line and discipline themselves.
And so counter-cultural movements that seek to further the cause of the individual are simply a natural extension of this project. There is very little (or nothing at all) that is subversive about them. As Heath and Potter argue, it's not just that counter-cultural movements are co-opted by corporations, it's that there was very little genuine difference between the two. They both embrace the same story — it's just that one party is clean cut and wears suits while the other party has dred-locks and wears tattoos.
A true counter-culture must be one that exists as a very different social body. That is why it is the Church (and not just individual Christians) whose existence must be a counter-culture. It is the Church as a body that lives a very different story — a story that genuinely counters the dominant culture of today.
In his best known story, Fahrenheit 451, Ray Bradbury describes a group of social outcasts and vagabonds who are, in fact, former professors and intellectuals. Within a culture that burns books, a culture immersed in war, image, noise, and every form of distraction devoid of meaning, these people have memorised the great works of literature. Thus the following conversation ensues when Guy Montag (the protagonist) is welcomed into the group:
“Would you like, someday, Montag, to read Plato's Republic?”
“Of course!”
“I am Plato's Republic.”
So also the Church, immersed as she is in a culture given over to war, consumption, and useless images (for, as Neil Postman reminds us, a picture may be worth a thousand words, but a thousand pictures could well prove to be worthless), memorises the Christian story, learns the Christian language, and lives as strangers in a strange land.
“Would you like, someday, to read the Word of God?”
“Of course!”
“We are the Word of God.”

Looking back on the form of Christianity that used to be the dominant religion of the Western nations — a form that was intimately linked to the governance of society and the exercising of state power — it is hard to miss the fact there there is an air of condescension to the acts of the church. The church is well aware that it is operating from a position of privilege to those who are much less privileged. Thus, in its acts of charity, of mercy, and of forgiveness, one can't help but notice a certain tone of superiority and smugness. Here expressions of love are inherently condescending.
However, such a church no longer exists except for in a few pocket communities (mostly located in the United States of America). Instead a form of liberalism has come to dominate. This isn't a reference to liberalism in the sense of the political liberal/conservative divide. Rather it is the form of philosophical liberalism that is espoused by both political liberals and conservatives alike.[1] Yet, as this liberalism has come to dominate social thought and action, condescension has become inherent to its practice of love. Those who abandon such exclusive narratives as the Christian story for the more tolerant and appealing stories of liberal democracies can afford to be “always open, irenic, and affirming.” After all, why shouldn't they be? They've won.[2] The claim that liberalism enables one to love everybody in a more genuine or open manner is simply the proof of the fact that liberals are in charge. That is to say, such claims to a more genuine form of loving others are often little more than the condescending words of charity given from those who know they've joined the winning team.[3]
Thus liberal democracies, as Rousseau notes, insist on the tolerance of a diversity of religions, for, within the metanarrative of such states, religion is reduced to the purely inward worship of God that does nothing to interfere with the duties of citizens to the state and tolerates other religions. This is why intolerant religions cannot be tolerated.[4] It is not because they necessarily dehumanise others or fail to love others. Rather it it because “intolerant” religions conflict with the story of liberalism and require citizens to serve a different authority than the state — an authority that, in fact, opposes the state. It is exactly by maintaining it's exclusivity and be refusing to capitulate to the narrative told by liberal nation-states that the church in the West will be able to demonstrate what it means to love all people everywhere.
__________________
[1]This liberalism is defined by the sovereignty of the individual in society, the assertion that there are universally experienced values inherent to all people everywhere, the assertion that truth is self-derived, and that there is some neutral philisophical ground whereby all conflicts can be resolved. Cf. Willimon et al., Good News in Exile.
[2]ibid.
[3]Please remember that I am using liberal in the philosophical (not political) sense here. I am not arguing in favour of some sort of cultural conservatism. Nor am I arguing for a return to a preliberal cognitive state that sees religion as stating binding propositional truths. I am much more drawn to Lindbeck's cultural-linguistic approach… but I digress.
[4]Cf. William T. Cavanaugh, Theopolitical Imagination.

When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist.
~ Dom Helder Camara, Archbishop of Recife, Brazil.
And don’t even think about suggesting that God has a preferential option for the poor. Such a thing is unthinkable to us who — despite our alms-giving, and our oh so noble acts of charity — pursue comfort, wealth, and that ever elusive sense of security. A preferential option for the poor? But I’m rich, and I’ve built my business with integrity — God must love me. God doesn’t have favourites.
Unfortunately, when one seriously studies the bible a preferential option is unavoidable. God does have favourites. There are people groups that God consistently sides with and speaks of with great affection — and there are people groups that God regularly sides against and speaks of with great anger. And it’s only natural that the groups the God sides against tend to claim that God is on their side, that they are living holy lives and are experiencing intimacy with the divine. It always was that way and I don’t expect things to be any different now.

These are not times for building justice; these are times for confronting injustice.
— Philip Berrigan
The point is that, until we have discovered how deeply rooted injustice is, we are unable to genuinely know what justice is. Until we have honestly confronted the injustice in ourselves, and discovered how deeply it is embedded within us, we will not be able to build justice. Premature attempts to build justice will only create parodies that are inherently compromised.

On December 27, 2004 TIME Magazine declared the recently re-elected President of the United States of America to be 2004's Person of the Year. The subtitle of the December 27th issue stated, “George W. Bush – American Revolutionary”. Bush Jr. has joined the ranks of such all American heroes as George Washington. As Time notes, “Eagles rather than doves nestle in the Oval Office”. Apparently Bush Jr. is not simply a hawk, he is the personification of American splendour. As Nancy Gibbs and John F. Dickerson write:
For sharpening the debate until the choices bled, for reframing reality to match his design, for gambling his fortunes – and America's – on his faith in the power of leadership, George W. Bush is TIME's 2004 Person of the Year…In his pursuit of a second term, Bush was just as radical as he was in his conduct of a pre-emptive war. As a politician, he showed the same discipline, secrecy and never he demonstrated in his conduct as President. So he emerges with his faith only deepened in the transformational power of clear leadership. Whether or not the election actually yielded a mandate for his policies, he is sure to claim one for his style, because he stuck to it against all odds, much advice and the lessons of history. And on that choice, at least, the results are in.
Now whether those results are actually in as genuine reflection of the American public or whether the Republicans “stole another election” is the topic of a more serious debate than Gibbs and Dickerson suggest(See Lewis H. Lapham's article, “True Blue” in HARPER'S, January 2005). Regardless, it is clear that the major media pundits are rejoicing in Bush Jr.'s re-election and portraying him as a bold, clear-eyed visionary who has triumphed because he is both strong and good.
TIME's portrayal of George W. Bush as a leader first and foremost is appropriately flushed out be Andrew Sullivan's essay on the final page entitled “Year of the Insurgents”. Drawing from the American Heritage Dictionary Sullivan defines “insurgency” as “a condition of revolt against a recognised government that does not reach the proportions of an organized revolutionary government and is not recognised as belligerency” (Sullivan does not include the italicised words, presumably because the fuller definition does not fit the profile of insurgents he is seeking to present). Thus, Sullivan concludes that insurgents are about sniping, not governing. Given the chance to exercise true leadership they prefer to stay on the margins. Besides, he says, they don't really expect victory. They engage in “a war that is not a real war, a halfway inconclusive revolt without end, a battle of attrition that polarizes as it goes essentially nowhere.” Thus, while insurgents from Mel Gibson, to Iraqi “rebels” in Fallujah, to Jon Stewart engage in infectious but ineffective revolts George W. Bush – that blessed American revolutionary and visionary – is the only true winner. And, TIME Magazine seems to suggest, we should be quite thankful for that.
Unfortunately Sullivan does not create an accurate portrait of insurgents (not that he seems concerned to do so) but only achieves a caricature. Looking at other definitions of insurgency (“an organised rebellion aimed at overthrowing a constituted government through the usage of subversion and armed conflict” – Merriam-Webster; “active revolt” – Oxford) one realises the the key to the definition of insurgents is not their aversion to government or leadership but their active resistance to the government as it currently exists. The American Heritage dictionary adds the clause about insurgents lacking organised government points to the fact that insurgencies are grass-roots movements that are still in the process of gathering numbers and organising themselves under structures of leadership. It does not mean that they are essentially going nowhere, it means that they have only just started going somewhere. Naturally Sullivan finds it much more convenient to warp the definition of insurgency in order to have his audience accept his mostly hyperbolic critique of those who oppose the mainstream media, George W., and American foreign policy.
It's hard to miss the doublespeak here. When those like Gibbs and Dickerson call George W. Bush a revolutionary one begins to wonder how much meaning is left in that word. Others who speak and act out against the injustices they perceive within the present order are not called revolutionary – they are insurgents, and insurgents as Sullivan defines them. TIME is careful to reserve the powerful language and symbolism of revolution (thanks to a culture and education system that presents the American Revolution as the pivotal turning point of history. Odd for a nation that is regarded as Christian – for Christianity affirms that the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus was the pivotal turning point of history) for its allies, while also refusing to apply such language and symbolism to its opponents, regardless of how closely either sit fits the terms of usage.
Perhaps t-shirts with pictures of Che Guevara captioned, “Vive la Revolucion” will one day be replaced with t-shirts sporting George W. Bush proclaiming, “Long live the Revolution”. And kids will sit around in Starbucks reminiscing about the glory days of his reign and wonder how they too can continue the war of freedom that he fought so well.

Thirteen years old in the suburbs of Denver, standing in line for Thanksgiving dinner at the Catholic church.
The servers wore crosses to shield from the sufferance plaguing the others.
Styrofoam plates, cafeteria tables,
Charity reeks of cheap wine and pity.
– Death Cab for Cutie
It's a true critique.
Somewhere along the way the cross has become a symbol of what separates Christians from others. It's become a symbol of who's in and who's out. Everywhere I go I can have a little comfort in the cross I wear, “Thank God I'm not like one of these damned souls.”
The thing is the cross should have incredibly different results. The cross is not a badge we wear to remind of us our privilege; the cross is something that will end up wearing us if we are truly following Jesus. It should serve to only further unite us with those around us. Ultimately, it's about empathy, about a love so deep, an identification with others that is so strong, that it is willing to suffer forsakenness and death.
Somewhere along the way Christians have confused pity for compassion. And us/them mentality is one of the strongest things contributing to this problem. Pity is a barrier to relationship, pity is deprecating. Compassion is essentially relational and reveals itself as such.
The thing that I'm coming to realize is that this will always be so. The church will always consist of a mixed group, those who call themselves the people of God, and those who truly are.
You see, I always thought the cross that I carried was the result of empathizing with the suffering, of journeying in love relationships with the forsaken.
At best that's only half the picture.
An equally heavy, or even heavier, part of that burden is imposed by journeying with a people who claim to belong to God yet have totally rejected everything to do with God. The significance of the role of the Jewish leaders in Jesus' death is not found in their ethnicity but in the fact that they are the representatives of God's people. Ultimately, the cross is imposed because the people of God reject the Messiah. I carry this cross not simply because I journey in love relationships with the broken but because the church has placed it upon my shoulders. The only reason why Jesus' ministry did not result in a year of Jubilee and in a universal release of captives, cancellation of debts, restoration of right relationships, etc., is because the people of God rejected him. The only reason why Jesus' ministry was marked by suffering and humiliation, instead of power and glory, was because the people of God forced him to go that route. The amazing thing is that the way of suffering is, in fact, the way of glory, the way of power is found in humiliation, resurrection life is the end result of crucifixion – that's what Paul's getting at in his hymn in Philippians 2.
And, the thing is, I don't think it can be any other way. It's the same route we will travel if we are desiring to be like Christ. Our lives should be marked by victory in all things. We should be releasing all captives, giving sight to the blind, providing a feast for the hungry and joy to those in mourning. Yet, we can only do this paradoxically by entering into the forsakenness of the abandoned, the hunger of the starving and the sorrow of the mourners because the people of God, as a body, have turned their back on their vocation. Our road to glory must also be one that leads to crucifixion.

And he [Jesus] was also saying to the crowds, “When you see a cloud rising in the west, immediately you say, ‘A shower is coming,’ and so it turns out. And when you see a south wind blowing, you say, ‘It will be a hot day,’ and it turns out. You hypocrites. You know how to analyze the appearance of the earth and the sky, but why do you not analyze this present time?” – Luke 12.54-56
Recently there has been a lot of press about an apparent clean-up in the Toronto police force, particularly the notoriously corrupt 52 division. And I talk with Christians who tell me this is a sign of God breaking in, a sign that God is moving in Toronto.
I disagree. I cannot agree.
It’s all related to analyzing the present time. How do we discern a genuine inbreaking of God from a human patch job? Well, I don’t know the hard and fast rules (after all it seems to be a contextual exercise) but I think the case with the Toronto police is pretty clear. We’ve seen this kind of clean-up before. A scandal leaks out that can’t be covered up (although they certainly try to do so). After the cover up attempts fail then a few low-ranking officers are pegged to take the fall (unless the scandal gets really big, then a major official may have to go down). Of course, those officers only go down after a lengthy hard-fought battle (where they are supported by tax-payers’ money). Of course at the end of it all the system that produces corrupt police stays firmly in place, as do all the serious players. But the media has put on a show that appeases the general public and so it’s business as usual until next time (the book “The Story of Jane Doe” has some great insights into the workings of the Toronto police, especially in this type of situation – Jane Doe sued the Toronto police and, after 11 years, won her case).
And this is God breaking into our city?
“They have healed the brokenness of my people superficially, saying, ‘Peace, peace,’ but there is no peace. Were they ashamed of the abomination they have done? They were not even ashamed at all; they did not even know how to blush.” – Jeremiah 6.14-15a
There, I believe is the appropriate Christian response to the ‘clean-up’ that is occurring right now in 52 division. And really, the verses that follow scare me.
“‘Therefore they shall fall among those who fall; at the time that I punish them, they shall be cast down,’ says the LORD.”
It all goes back to repentance. Repentance that results in personal and systemic transformation. That is what is lacking. On one hand it is what is needed for God to break in, on the other hand it is the first sign that God is already breaking in.