Hala Maloki 7/25/09 DRAFT
Parable Doctrine and Religious Identity
Practice of the teaching requires no sense of religious identity. Those who would practice the teaching’s principles, not knowing of Jesus and the parables, stand the same chance for increase as those that do. But if you associate practice with Jesus then his identity can affect you.
Jesus’ teaching existed within the context of Hebrew tradition but he did not work through the religious hierarchy. His teaching only depended on the sound of his voice and the understanding of his students. The intangible intent of his message was emphasized by the absence of religious
structures. But even in the open fields the kingdom was saturated with the complicated influences of the dominant religious institutions. We have inherited his teaching wrapped in multifaceted religious traditions that have formed around it. But as it was in his time, so it is in ours, his teaching helps us understand the effect that religious traditions have on our experience of the intangible reality.
Testifying to the inheritance of ideological struggle, there is a lingering anti-establishment air in Christianity that propels the mood of both the disciples of Jesus and the followers of John the Baptist into our own time. But where Jesus objected to the use of religious law to persecute the
least, John objected to the failure to enforce religious law against the powerful. The teacher defended the least from both the established religious law and the anger of the mobs.
Because the original teaching did not come to us with a name, we know it only by its teacher. But once you know the secret of the teaching it can be reconstructed as parable doctrine. Through parables Jesus invoked the Hebrew tradition of the kingdom of the resurrected dead to introduce the kingdom of the living. Parable doctrine invokes the Christian tradition of the kingdom of heaven to restate the original living kingdom teaching.
There are two kinds of parables; introductory parables and instruction parables. Jesus’ introductory parables were designed to lead to a revelation; the realization that he was talking about the present moment rather than a future time. His entry into the kingdom was through a
religion associated experience. Teaching parables instruct those who have already entered. The use of parables signals the shift from common interaction to religious interaction. Parables identify the teaching itself [and therefor the meaning of ‘kingdom’]. Always using parables made it possible to keep the teaching distinct even while employing traditional symbols. But the teaching is not fulfilled until it is internalized in the spirit. As yeast comes to life in dough so the teaching works through the spirit of a human being. But as it is absorbed it gives up its distinct religious [yeast] identity.
Religious Interaction
The religious nature of Jesus’ teaching was obvious, this was not common interactions [practice]. When he was with his followers their religious interactions were discussions of the teaching and advice on its practice. But inherent in religious interaction is the possibility of religious organization. The first concern of any grouping of practitioners of parable doctrine should be to make sure that they do not subvert the teaching through their religious activities. Religious grouping should be carefully exercised because of the danger of substituting religious interaction for practice [teaching influenced common {normal} interaction]. The association of the teaching with religious groups can impede the application of the teaching in common interaction and compromise the experience of the kingdom.
Both Christian doctrine and parable doctrine maintain that Jesus is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Belief in Christ is at the heart of the Messianic doctrine and the belief that Jesus is Christ is the basis of the Christian Church. The parable teaching of Jesus is the heart of parable
doctrine but the church plays no role in it. Because of the dominance of the Messianic doctrine in Christianity the original parable teaching was obscured, even if the internalized, identityless, teaching continued to function within some Christians. So the primary reason for creating a
religious institution that maintains a religious identity based on parable doctrine would be to see that the secret of the kingdom remains available.
Unassociated Interaction
Religious interaction is associated with teaching but is not the teaching itself. But there are other kinds of interactions which are not associate with the teaching at all. In some interactions, like those that involve fighting [arguments or games], the teaching is relevant only to disengagement rather than engagement. Practicing the teaching works to get ahead of fighting by creating conditions that are not conducive to conflict. If you find yourself engaged in fighting don’t try to justify it through the teaching. This includes characterizations of good and evil doing battle within the spiritual reality. The model of spiritual growth is not a conflict model. Though it is necessary to stand by your principles to achieve increase, be wary about getting into situations where principles become weapons; using your religion to justify attacking another or thinking that your religion will not allow you to avoid evil or disengage from a fight.
Understanding the teaching means knowing when it is not applicable. Unassociated interactions [warfare, politics, business] should not invoke the teaching. Conscious application of the teaching to unassociated interaction should be undertaken with the great care and acknowledgment of
consequences. Remember, good, increase, and the effect on the least, measures your words and deeds.
Religious Identity
The imperative to be perceived as part of the dominant religious tradition can affect practice by not allowing for common interaction. If you find that your perceived religiousness is threatened by common interaction then you should examine what role your religion plays in your identity.
‘Practice’ does not allow for stratigic manipulation. Only when your religion allows you to apply the teaching directly to the exercise your actual spirit can practice serve the purpose of increase.
Hypocrisy is a combination of being ignorant of ones own spirit and judging others through religion. The easiest remedy is not to judge. But if you judge, don’t use religious justification. Judging is an unassociated interaction but you can learn from it. The genius of the teaching is; the worse your judgment is, the worse you are at interacting, the greater the rewards of practice. Internalize humility so you can accept being wrong. Internalize forgiveness so you will be free to grow past being judgmental.
Non-Materialism
Jesus and his followers roamed the countryside leaving in their wake individuals who were now conscious of the intangible reality. Jesus taught them that their potential for spiritual growth can be negatively affected by material concerns. But unless those initiates were able to give up their
jobs, families, and other responsibilities and become religious vagabonds, they had to return to their homes and carry on the best they could. After the death of the teacher, the disciples themselves settled into neighborhoods where the initiates lived. Thus the effort to square the
teaching with the surrounding culture began in earnest.
We have inherited a religious tradition that has made many compromises to materialism. Christians often moderate the teaching on non-materialism by referencing Hebrew law, Some religious leaders even associate wealth with spiritual greatness. Rather than subverting the
teaching by trying to associate it with materialism, it is better to make a clear distinction between them.
The argument is made that only when material needs have been met can a person reach their spiritual potential. Certainly good physical health is conducive to being happy. But there are two approaches to solving problems of material needs; one is to do everything you can to meet them, the other is to do everything you can to minimize their importance. Clearly, Jesus is teaching the second approach. He dismissed values such as financial responsibility and the owning of property as non-essential. Because those who do not have money or property can apply the teaching without surrender of wealth and status, they are more likely to benefit. Those who have money and property may find it harder to adopt a non-materialist doctrine. The good news is, realizing that you are not willing to have less in order to grow more, is in itself a valuable lesson in humility. Its is a function of increase to find out about yourself. All the more reason to practice acceptance and forgiveness and to not carry religious identity into common interaction. As you practice you will slowly grow towards being a non-materialist.
Once the ‘least’ receives the teaching they are no longer the least in that they have been equipped for increase and yield. If they embrace non-materialism, and if those who keep wealth recognize the validity of non-materialism, then they can belong to the same religion. Being poor
on its own is not necessarily a desirable state. If you are poor and are in constant anxiety because of it, or if you think that being poor justifies being mean to others, then you are in a worse position than one who has money, lives without anxiety, and is kind to others. Someone who has material wealth can be rich spiritually as well, But following the teaching inevitably leads to non-materialism and it is unlikely that the greatest in the kingdom would also be the wealthiest on earth.
Claiming the teaching while hanging on to materialism, requires being careful about how you effect those who are not materially encumbered. The sharing of wealth is no substitute for common interaction, especially if it is done in a way that reinforces social position, creates anxiety, or obligates others. If your interactions with a poorer person is always concerned with you giving or not giving to them, you may forfeit the spiritual growth that could be gained through normal interactions.
Being poor does not necessarily mean being non-materialistic. Poverty can indicate the influence of materialism or induce materialism. If your interactions with a richer person is always concerned with what you can get from them, you may become skilled at taking advantage of others. If you try to take advantage of others, but are not spiritually suited for it, not only will you remain poor but you will also forfeit growth through interaction.
As the teaching makes allowances for poverty, it also mediates a whole array of spiritual deficits. Just as the teaching minimizes the stigma of being poor so also it minimizes the stigma of being spiritually weak. Spiritual and material poverty are not the goal, rather they are conditions
that are responsive to the teaching. If you make more bad judgments than good, odds are, adopting the practice of non-judgment will improve your situation over time. Allowing things to work themselves out [acceptance] can result in growth and yield. When bad judgments concern money, non-materialism [as a form of non-judgment, allowing for the disentangling {forgiving} of material concerns], may coincide with more material comfort. But if you let pride in spiritual growth or gains in material wealth distract you from the teaching you will forfeit the perspective that brought that good to you.
Internalizing the Teaching, Growth
Practice is the application of the teaching to common interaction. The intangible reality has been determined by interactions that have come to pass and those interactions will determine the interactions that will come to pass. Practice changes your spirit [your emotions and ways of
thinking] and by those changes, your actions and reactions change also. In as much as you can access your own potential for increase, this allows you to avoid any evil that you may have inherited from the intangible reality. Because the teaching is fully integrated when it is internalized, the internalized teaching has no religious identity. Religious identity is maintained only to keep the teaching available. Maintaining religious identity relies on religious interaction which is not a substitute for common interaction.
yield
The natural product of growth is both chaff and grain. It does not happen all at once or just at the end of life. As good and bad increase they can be told apart. Let go of the chaff and hang onto the grain. Yield is the grain, it is the manifestation of good. This includes all the good normal
stuff that happens to you, things like feeling happy or sleeping well, and all of the extra-ordinary good things that happen, things like revelations and healings.
COMMENTARY ON COMMENTARIES
Parable doctrine is an interpretation of the parables that is presented as a reconstruction of the teaching. A commentary on parable doctrine is a way to express views on the parable teaching and the doctrine’s representation of the teaching. A commentary on tradition is a way to express parabalist views on religious traditions [especially any parable doctrine traditions that may develop]. Commentary on commentaries is a way to express opinions on the purpose and content of a particular commentaries or commentaries in general.
If you find a commentary agreeable or not, the doctrine stands on its own. Once you have the key to the kingdom from the parables, and understand the teaching, you can find your way through any of the things that have come to pass because of it.
END
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Application of Parable Doctrine to the Alternative Subcultures
7/29/09 draft Hala Maloki
Hebrew subculture
Because the teaching was given to the least it attracted the attention of a variety of people who lived outside the
mainstream of society. In this representation of fringe elements were denizens of many different subcultures. It is
easy to imagine cultists, addicts, and revolutionaries of all kinds claiming their turf, each bringing their particular
perspectives and alliances to bear on the others who had gathered around the teacher. That gathering created a
teaching influenced population inside each subculture. And as different as they all were, those who identified with the
teaching and the teacher came together as a new subcultural religion. Paul’s efforts to bring these people into
Messianic Judaism was the beginning of the Christian religion.
alternative subculture
Like those influenced by the teaching, sprinkled into the subcultures would have been those who were influenced by
literacy but who did not work within the dominant traditions. They were the ones likely to have been the first to have
put the parables in written form. These kinds of learning influenced individuals among the subcultural populations can
form subcultures of their own. In Europe during the late 1800’s, the ‘bohemians’, known for their work in the arts
coupled with their subcultural interests became the model for the first American alternative subculture. The bohemians
that arrived in the United States from Europe, were descendants of well to do families. But after World War II a new
generation of middle class kindred spirits, the ‘beat-nicks, gathered in the existing bohemian enclaves. The beats, by
virtue of their education, expressed an intelligent perspective on the experience of being raised middle class and also
on the values of the subcultures that influenced them. Another new generation of idealistic young adults that were
attracted to the beats coalesced in San Francisco, emerging as the ‘hippies’ by the late 1960’s, after them came the
‘punks’ and ‘alternatives’, each a manifestation of alternative subculture.
Like the bohemians, the educated hippies could easily draw on the institutions of the dominant culture. But because
they, like the beats, were mostly middle class, the result was a newly privileged group of young adults that were
attracted to subcultures and free of the traditions of wealth. They also were aware of being the third in line in a new
tradition of alternative subculture and were eager to create their own version it. Some gravitated towards social and
political activism, while others turned towards religion and philosophy. Through their exposure in popular media they
had a strong influence on the dominant culture. But the hippies also had an effect on the other subcultures, and many
found themselves identifying with them. The hippies were accessible, and their inclusiveness led to an unguarded,
class and culture boundary busting period of interaction.
The celebrations were spectacular, made all the more so by the mood of optimism and possibility. But the
philosophical and the mystical among them were slowly marginalized by the hard-core partyers who formed the mass
that would become the Woodstock Nation; a stunning 1969 exposition of popular culture. The idealism of Hippie was
no longer a matter of spirited philosophical debate. Any ideals that were going to be identified with the mass
movement were in place. But as important as the party was to the subculture, it needed its connection to its idealism
to maintain its alternative subculture flavor and identity.
the yeast of drugs
In 1967 [The Summer of Love], the blues/rock band Traffic released a new album. The title cut ‘Heaven is In You
Mind’ is an interesting bit of psychedelia. The idea of the kingdom of heaven as the intangible reality was in the air. In
San Francisco many were expressing the opinion that the hippie subculture was indeed a religious movement. That
summer the San Francisco Oracle ran a front page graphic of a loving Jesus holding open his arms to those who were
about to enter.
There was a pervasive confusion about the role that drugs played in this subcultural spirituality. Drug ingestion had
become associated with the revelation of the intangible reality and for many the teachingless drug induced entry was
indeed the ‘yeast’ of drug subculture. Hippies that looked for religious guidance after their introduction gravitated
towards Western nature religions and Eastern mysticism, each being drug tolerant compared to mainstream
Christianity. But for those who did not want to engage in wholesale superstition, or profess to religions that they had
no tradition of, there was little to go on.
Wealthy alternative religions did not seek out die-hard hippies, rather they built small empires through their recruitment
of the socially positioned. The misfits were left to the attention of the fringier shepherds, many of whom were not
motivated by the love of good. Drug enhanced mind games was a major feature among some religious groups. The
fact of the meek being neglected or victimized was an all to common feature of the first hip/alt subculture.
As traditional churches recognized the significance of subcultures to their religions, they attempted to establish
reflective, subcultural expressions of the Messianic doctrine. These institutions brought many subcultural into the
mainstream, those who could make the theological jump. But many could not embrace it, some being alienated from
Jesus by the demands of the Christian doctrine. So the first hip/alt-subcult faded, leaving behind no institution
[enduring clear statement] of their idealism coinciding with the parable teaching. Here is my attempt at that
statement..
1. idealism, [youth and optimism]
Many have criticized the hippie idea of youth culture, but the homage paid to the young adult is a tradition in all
civilizations. Maybe it was success of the hippies at presenting an alternative youth culture on a world wide scale that
caused the traditionalist to deny that the sub-culture embodied a legitimate expression of the cult of youth that is
meaningful to every generation.
It was the military inculturation [draft] of the baby boomers that provided much of the impulse for the hippie subculture.
The inherent sense of optimism [indestructibility] in young adults that makes them good soldiers also makes them
effective agents in dangerous culture wars. Idealism should always serve the cause of good [God], but can be set to
other purposes. The manipulation of idealism by the dominant culture triggered the rebellion. The misdirected
idealism of the hippies also caused trouble.
Generally speaking, tradition carries forward the characteristics the dominant culture. Tradition inspires and rewards
by its omnipresence [by always being there]. Butsubcultural influences can be carried forward also. The lasting presence of the teaching exists in its written parables
and in the internalization of its idealism. The enduring hippie symbol of their idealism is the peace sign, but the
embodiment of hippie idealism is the flower child; the personification of a young adult, living in a time of peace and
love. These symbols have been carried forward largely through popular culture. A subcultural religion could keep these
symbols in a religious context.
2.tolerance
Of the characteristics of parable doctrine, acceptance [tolerance] was also a hallmark of Hippie. Though they tended
to be judgmental of their own traditions, they were tolerant towards other cultures, races, and religions. There was
respect for the old, the poor, and the disabled. And if they tolerated behavior and conditions that ultimately proved to
be harmful they did so out of a respect for personal freedom rather than from a disdain for life. But many people were
intolerant towards hippies and before they gained widespread influence they were targets of attacks from the ‘greaser’
subculture. The earliest hippies were able to negotiate their way through skirmishes by exercising acceptance,
forgiveness, humility, and love. They were not telling other people how to live, they just enjoyed their own freedom.
By holding onto their own idealism they appealed to the idealism in those who were drawn to them. But Hippie would
come to believe that their subculture would eventually dominate society through absorption or by revolution, and this
inhumility weakened the original perspective of tolerance.
Many hippies held to the belief that it was o.k. for adults to use recreational drugs if it was done in a safe and
responsible manner. Even those that did not use themselves supported the others right to get high. And as they drifted
into the mainstream culture, its was their influence that softened the laws against marijuana. But while the
mainstreamed hipsters learned to hide their drug use, the counter-culture promoted it in an irresponsible way. The
waves of cocaine addiction that swept through all levels of society in the 1970’s ended any speculation that more
easing of drug laws might occur. The 80’s era of zero-tolerance with its mandatory drug sentencing was the dominant
culture’s response to the increasing presence of illegal drugs in their neighborhoods and kids. Their reaction of
enacting vindictive, unforgiving laws came not from their compassion for drug addicts, but from their concern for the
continuation of their own culture.
The hippies did have anti-speed campaigns in the summer of ‘67. And their LSD rescues are cultural artifacts of the
era. But the hippies that remained in their alt-subcult would eventually become identified simply by their drug use. If
the Hip/alt-subcult that merged with the mainstream sold out to the establishment then the Hip/alt-subcult that allowed
themselves to be absorbed by the drug subcultures sold out to them.
3.non-materialism
Of the characteristics that are central to parable doctrine, non-materialism is also central to the alternative subcultures.
The most radical element, there is no greater asset towards spiritual freedom and no greater impediment to being
culturally viable.
The general consensus is that hippies lost the battle to materialism and surrendered their idealism. But the
participants in the hip/alt-subcult who returned to the mainstream brought a lot of idealism back with them. But
non-materialism cannot be instituted fully into the dominant culture. Instead, its influence is felt individually and
through idealistic non-profit corporations and optimistic social service agencies. Interestingly enough, for all their lack
of optimism, the punks, who replaced the hippies as the vanguard of the alt-subcult, were even more die-hard
non-materialists. And even though the aging punks have followed roughly the same trajectories into mainstream
culture that the hippies did, they are not as attractive to materialists as the integrated hippies were. Whenever
non-materialism is evident there will be a kinship to the teaching. Whether the lack of concern over materialism is due
to complete satisfaction of all needs, voluntary surrender of desire, or the acceptance that material wealth can never
be yours, non-materialism sets you apart.
4. naturalism, [sex]
Jesus’ parable of the growing grain is a naturalistic view of spiritual growth. The teaching is very accepting of the
normal [natural] conditions of being human. The sexual liberation component of Hippie was a natural extension of the
celebration of the idealism and optimism of young adulthood. The physical act of sex was also valued for its spiritual
effects. Orgasms may be physical but pleasure is also intangible. Because the free practice of sex requires greater
expression to continue achieving the heightened effect, the trajectory of ‘free love’ was towards increased activity. As
with Hippie in general, the more well adjusted the individual was coming into the subculture the better they would
function under unusual circumstances. In as much as being Hippie was associated with the successful navigation of
an expanding sexual landscape, a lot of identity could ride on being flexible. But even if sexual liberation was the
hallmark of the evolved, sophisticated hipster, not everyone was up for it. If sex is the yeast, then a sex subculture
will be the bread.
Male with female sex for pleasure, without the risk of pregnancy, was achieved for the first time in human history in
the late 60’s, through reliable birth control. But sexually transmitted diseases were not being controlled. The condoms
that were designed to prevent both pregnancy and disease were replaced by the pill which almost designed to prevent
pregnancy but not disease. Beyond the physical tolls, the spiritual damage done by sexually transmitted diseases was
unexpected. In too many instances the response was to accept and forgive the evil but not do anything to help others
avoid it. Accepting sexual disease was considered the price of liberation that could be tolerated within the sexually
liberated community itself. But many who were lured by the possibility of free love may not have so willingly joined the
club. And what did not kill them was not making them any stronger.
To the vegetarian hippie, and the meat-eating jock, being healthy was and still is central to the ideal state of young
adulthood. Sexual disease and idealism do not easily co-exist. As having a baby brings with it material concerns, so
sexual disease is a dose of reality. It is natural to want sex, and it is natural to have children. But it is doubtful that
many would want to consider sexual diseases as being natural. Liberationists have historically resented the religious
argument that sexual diseases are the natural [predictable] result of fornication. Catching a sexual disease should not
now be thought of as an inevitable part of sexual expression any more than having a baby is now thought to be.
Birth control and disease prevention and cure rely on science. In a more natural world these devices would not be
available. We use birth control and condoms and take medicines, but we should not inculturate behaviors that
guarantees more babies or diseases if the time comes when these things are not available. The alternative
subcultural will never dominate society, but many will have children. And even though we may not have traditional families we still
need to protect ourselves, our children, and their children from unwanted pregnancies or disease. In that way we
protect the larger culture, keeping our own subculture from being seen as a threat to public health. We have the right
and the know how to engage in sex for pleasure. We should not let that endanger us, physically or spiritually, now or
in the future.
5. love
Making love is physical but being in love is spiritual. The alternative subculture has moved away from the concept of
romantic love but in doing so have given up positive associations that could be applied to more generalized
expressions of love. Being in love feels good and loving good [God] is the prime commandment. It is without a doubt
one of the all time great natural highs. Spiritual ecstasy is similar to romantic love in that it puts the individual into a
blissful state that transcends the normal worries of the world. In terms of parable doctrine, this is a good thing. The
better you feel the less likely you are to become anxious or judgmental, the more likely you are to forgive and accept.
6. simplicity
In food, as in sex, naturalism and simplicity are not always compatible. Where the adherence to naturalism has been
the builder of many an organic farm, simplicity suggests that you ‘eat what is set before you’. How many times has a
hippie embarked on a labor intensive scheme only to become surrounded by the debris of unrealized ambition. If the
spirit is not configured to support hard sustained effort, if it will not be learned, it is better to avoid it.
A non-materialists acceptance is simplicity itself; what ever your druthers might be, defer, [for the moment anyway] to
what is before you. Being lazy, while not the most desirable state, does not have to be fatal. What makes it so is how
you handle it. Do not impose yourself on others and they should not impose on you. In other words, your interactions
have to be free from greed. It is OK to accept the goods and services that are offered to you by individuals or
organizations as long as no debt is incurred. In other words if it is given freely, you may accept it. Debts are forgiven
because they are sins. They are a spiritual burden. You are much better off doing without than manipulating debt.
Give what you feel good about giving without receiving repayment. Good can be simple.
7. activism
Hippies are known for their political and social activism and many of them eventually work for non-profit organizations
and social service agencies. As these workers inculturate their idealism into the mainstream, much of their hippie
identity is sacrificed. When ‘fitting in’ with the dominant culture, the tacit understanding is that some identifiers are
best kept secret. Ideals are more important than identity.
But it was the willingness of the hippies to show [express] themselves that created the public subcultural identity. Their
youth and general disregard for social norms made them the most photographed subculture in history. But even
though it was the news photos of the colorful hippie demonstrators that helped spawn the massive anti-war movement
of the late sixties and early seventies, their home made street theater was dwarfed by the rallies put together by whole
coalitions of white shirt activist-organizers.
The model of non-violence and passive resistance that the hippies got from Martin Luther King’s civil rights movement
coincided nicely with their interests in India. Gandhi, like King, had a spiritual and political conscience. But political
extremists amongst the hippies wanted a revolution with real guns and were successful at organizing large groups
around that idea. But like the revolutionaries among the followers of Jesus [the Zealots], there was little in common
between the ethos of peace and love and the dogma of violent revolution. Hippies are effective activists when their
politics reflects their own lives. They perform a great service to society if they remind them in a loving, humble way
about idealism. Their street theater [protest] is a genuine subcultural art. But just being a recognizable hippie [as
simple as wearing a button] accomplishes much of the goal. But hippies interacting through street protest is like
religious interaction, it does not take the place of practice [common interaction].
8. communalism
The whole point of the good shepherd searching for the lost sheep might not have been so much that the sheep were
lost, as it was that they were on their own. Jesus himself was known to wander off from time to time. And as
independent as a person might be, everyone at least likes to think of themselves as belonging to a group even if they
are seldom actually with one.
Hippies had their own form of homeless shelter, the crash pad, where the most basic rules of hygiene and safety
sufficed as the social order; don’t crap where you sleep and don’t hurt anybody. The next step up the organizational
ladder was the hippie cooperative houses. The shared kitchens and bathrooms meant that agreements had to be
made to keep order. These agreements did not usually last very long. And then there was the famous hippie
communes. Usually structured around an ideal or a cause [a religious commune, a vegetarian commune] the
communes tended to be rule heavy and very personal in their politics.
Communes were attractive because they were cheap and fun. But the encounter group mechanics of keeping one
going tended to consume its members. How much togetherness you can handle is a big determiner of structure.
While the hippies thought they were the new model for American society it made sense to try to work out the living
arrangements. If you can be that conscientious, the whole world is available to you, and some hippies did put together
successful communes, sometimes creating new religious subcultures.
an enduring alternative
Alternative subculture is unique in its range of generational variations, and each alternative subculture has been
strong enough to nurture groups that can survive awhile without any surrender of subcultural identity. But as the
majority of alternatives take their place in the mainstream, the dominant subcultures exert increasing pressure on the
remainder to conform to them. They who endure must maintain identity and idealism before the dominant culture and
the other subcultures. To do this they will have to establish a clear expression of the idealism behind their tolerance
towards recreational drug use so as not to be engulfed by drug subculture. They will have to keep the influence of
the mind expanding joy of learning on their subculture in balance with their other interests so as not to alienate those
less enamored with education. They will have to find ways to present their idealism through popular culture. They
will have to learn how to engage in activism without being co-opted by the non-profit affiliates of the dominant culture. They will have to learn their way around poverty without losing identity to the social service
subcultures. All this they will have to do without being waylaid by advocates of intolerant politics or religion, be it
personal or social in nature. Then they will be able to maintain an ongoing multigenerational presence in their
relationships to the mainstream, other subcultures, and subsequent alt-subcults, without loss of idealism or identity.
By clearly stating the association of any subculture’s idealism with the idealism of parable doctrine, you are connecting
it to the dominant religious tradition. This serves good by defending the humanity of the subculturals of every
generation, satisfying their need for identity, freeing them to internalize the teaching.
END
Hebrew subculture
Because the teaching was given to the least it attracted the attention of a variety of people who lived outside the
mainstream of society. In this representation of fringe elements were denizens of many different subcultures. It is
easy to imagine cultists, addicts, and revolutionaries of all kinds claiming their turf, each bringing their particular
perspectives and alliances to bear on the others who had gathered around the teacher. That gathering created a
teaching influenced population inside each subculture. And as different as they all were, those who identified with the
teaching and the teacher came together as a new subcultural religion. Paul’s efforts to bring these people into
Messianic Judaism was the beginning of the Christian religion.
alternative subculture
Like those influenced by the teaching, sprinkled into the subcultures would have been those who were influenced by
literacy but who did not work within the dominant traditions. They were the ones likely to have been the first to have
put the parables in written form. These kinds of learning influenced individuals among the subcultural populations can
form subcultures of their own. In Europe during the late 1800’s, the ‘bohemians’, known for their work in the arts
coupled with their subcultural interests became the model for the first American alternative subculture. The bohemians
that arrived in the United States from Europe, were descendants of well to do families. But after World War II a new
generation of middle class kindred spirits, the ‘beat-nicks, gathered in the existing bohemian enclaves. The beats, by
virtue of their education, expressed an intelligent perspective on the experience of being raised middle class and also
on the values of the subcultures that influenced them. Another new generation of idealistic young adults that were
attracted to the beats coalesced in San Francisco, emerging as the ‘hippies’ by the late 1960’s, after them came the
‘punks’ and ‘alternatives’, each a manifestation of alternative subculture.
Like the bohemians, the educated hippies could easily draw on the institutions of the dominant culture. But because
they, like the beats, were mostly middle class, the result was a newly privileged group of young adults that were
attracted to subcultures and free of the traditions of wealth. They also were aware of being the third in line in a new
tradition of alternative subculture and were eager to create their own version it. Some gravitated towards social and
political activism, while others turned towards religion and philosophy. Through their exposure in popular media they
had a strong influence on the dominant culture. But the hippies also had an effect on the other subcultures, and many
found themselves identifying with them. The hippies were accessible, and their inclusiveness led to an unguarded,
class and culture boundary busting period of interaction.
The celebrations were spectacular, made all the more so by the mood of optimism and possibility. But the
philosophical and the mystical among them were slowly marginalized by the hard-core partyers who formed the mass
that would become the Woodstock Nation; a stunning 1969 exposition of popular culture. The idealism of Hippie was
no longer a matter of spirited philosophical debate. Any ideals that were going to be identified with the mass
movement were in place. But as important as the party was to the subculture, it needed its connection to its idealism
to maintain its alternative subculture flavor and identity.
the yeast of drugs
In 1967 [The Summer of Love], the blues/rock band Traffic released a new album. The title cut ‘Heaven is In You
Mind’ is an interesting bit of psychedelia. The idea of the kingdom of heaven as the intangible reality was in the air. In
San Francisco many were expressing the opinion that the hippie subculture was indeed a religious movement. That
summer the San Francisco Oracle ran a front page graphic of a loving Jesus holding open his arms to those who were
about to enter.
There was a pervasive confusion about the role that drugs played in this subcultural spirituality. Drug ingestion had
become associated with the revelation of the intangible reality and for many the teachingless drug induced entry was
indeed the ‘yeast’ of drug subculture. Hippies that looked for religious guidance after their introduction gravitated
towards Western nature religions and Eastern mysticism, each being drug tolerant compared to mainstream
Christianity. But for those who did not want to engage in wholesale superstition, or profess to religions that they had
no tradition of, there was little to go on.
Wealthy alternative religions did not seek out die-hard hippies, rather they built small empires through their recruitment
of the socially positioned. The misfits were left to the attention of the fringier shepherds, many of whom were not
motivated by the love of good. Drug enhanced mind games was a major feature among some religious groups. The
fact of the meek being neglected or victimized was an all to common feature of the first hip/alt subculture.
As traditional churches recognized the significance of subcultures to their religions, they attempted to establish
reflective, subcultural expressions of the Messianic doctrine. These institutions brought many subcultural into the
mainstream, those who could make the theological jump. But many could not embrace it, some being alienated from
Jesus by the demands of the Christian doctrine. So the first hip/alt-subcult faded, leaving behind no institution
[enduring clear statement] of their idealism coinciding with the parable teaching. Here is my attempt at that
statement..
1. idealism, [youth and optimism]
Many have criticized the hippie idea of youth culture, but the homage paid to the young adult is a tradition in all
civilizations. Maybe it was success of the hippies at presenting an alternative youth culture on a world wide scale that
caused the traditionalist to deny that the sub-culture embodied a legitimate expression of the cult of youth that is
meaningful to every generation.
It was the military inculturation [draft] of the baby boomers that provided much of the impulse for the hippie subculture.
The inherent sense of optimism [indestructibility] in young adults that makes them good soldiers also makes them
effective agents in dangerous culture wars. Idealism should always serve the cause of good [God], but can be set to
other purposes. The manipulation of idealism by the dominant culture triggered the rebellion. The misdirected
idealism of the hippies also caused trouble.
Generally speaking, tradition carries forward the characteristics the dominant culture. Tradition inspires and rewards
by its omnipresence [by always being there]. Butsubcultural influences can be carried forward also. The lasting presence of the teaching exists in its written parables
and in the internalization of its idealism. The enduring hippie symbol of their idealism is the peace sign, but the
embodiment of hippie idealism is the flower child; the personification of a young adult, living in a time of peace and
love. These symbols have been carried forward largely through popular culture. A subcultural religion could keep these
symbols in a religious context.
2.tolerance
Of the characteristics of parable doctrine, acceptance [tolerance] was also a hallmark of Hippie. Though they tended
to be judgmental of their own traditions, they were tolerant towards other cultures, races, and religions. There was
respect for the old, the poor, and the disabled. And if they tolerated behavior and conditions that ultimately proved to
be harmful they did so out of a respect for personal freedom rather than from a disdain for life. But many people were
intolerant towards hippies and before they gained widespread influence they were targets of attacks from the ‘greaser’
subculture. The earliest hippies were able to negotiate their way through skirmishes by exercising acceptance,
forgiveness, humility, and love. They were not telling other people how to live, they just enjoyed their own freedom.
By holding onto their own idealism they appealed to the idealism in those who were drawn to them. But Hippie would
come to believe that their subculture would eventually dominate society through absorption or by revolution, and this
inhumility weakened the original perspective of tolerance.
Many hippies held to the belief that it was o.k. for adults to use recreational drugs if it was done in a safe and
responsible manner. Even those that did not use themselves supported the others right to get high. And as they drifted
into the mainstream culture, its was their influence that softened the laws against marijuana. But while the
mainstreamed hipsters learned to hide their drug use, the counter-culture promoted it in an irresponsible way. The
waves of cocaine addiction that swept through all levels of society in the 1970’s ended any speculation that more
easing of drug laws might occur. The 80’s era of zero-tolerance with its mandatory drug sentencing was the dominant
culture’s response to the increasing presence of illegal drugs in their neighborhoods and kids. Their reaction of
enacting vindictive, unforgiving laws came not from their compassion for drug addicts, but from their concern for the
continuation of their own culture.
The hippies did have anti-speed campaigns in the summer of ‘67. And their LSD rescues are cultural artifacts of the
era. But the hippies that remained in their alt-subcult would eventually become identified simply by their drug use. If
the Hip/alt-subcult that merged with the mainstream sold out to the establishment then the Hip/alt-subcult that allowed
themselves to be absorbed by the drug subcultures sold out to them.
3.non-materialism
Of the characteristics that are central to parable doctrine, non-materialism is also central to the alternative subcultures.
The most radical element, there is no greater asset towards spiritual freedom and no greater impediment to being
culturally viable.
The general consensus is that hippies lost the battle to materialism and surrendered their idealism. But the
participants in the hip/alt-subcult who returned to the mainstream brought a lot of idealism back with them. But
non-materialism cannot be instituted fully into the dominant culture. Instead, its influence is felt individually and
through idealistic non-profit corporations and optimistic social service agencies. Interestingly enough, for all their lack
of optimism, the punks, who replaced the hippies as the vanguard of the alt-subcult, were even more die-hard
non-materialists. And even though the aging punks have followed roughly the same trajectories into mainstream
culture that the hippies did, they are not as attractive to materialists as the integrated hippies were. Whenever
non-materialism is evident there will be a kinship to the teaching. Whether the lack of concern over materialism is due
to complete satisfaction of all needs, voluntary surrender of desire, or the acceptance that material wealth can never
be yours, non-materialism sets you apart.
4. naturalism, [sex]
Jesus’ parable of the growing grain is a naturalistic view of spiritual growth. The teaching is very accepting of the
normal [natural] conditions of being human. The sexual liberation component of Hippie was a natural extension of the
celebration of the idealism and optimism of young adulthood. The physical act of sex was also valued for its spiritual
effects. Orgasms may be physical but pleasure is also intangible. Because the free practice of sex requires greater
expression to continue achieving the heightened effect, the trajectory of ‘free love’ was towards increased activity. As
with Hippie in general, the more well adjusted the individual was coming into the subculture the better they would
function under unusual circumstances. In as much as being Hippie was associated with the successful navigation of
an expanding sexual landscape, a lot of identity could ride on being flexible. But even if sexual liberation was the
hallmark of the evolved, sophisticated hipster, not everyone was up for it. If sex is the yeast, then a sex subculture
will be the bread.
Male with female sex for pleasure, without the risk of pregnancy, was achieved for the first time in human history in
the late 60’s, through reliable birth control. But sexually transmitted diseases were not being controlled. The condoms
that were designed to prevent both pregnancy and disease were replaced by the pill which almost designed to prevent
pregnancy but not disease. Beyond the physical tolls, the spiritual damage done by sexually transmitted diseases was
unexpected. In too many instances the response was to accept and forgive the evil but not do anything to help others
avoid it. Accepting sexual disease was considered the price of liberation that could be tolerated within the sexually
liberated community itself. But many who were lured by the possibility of free love may not have so willingly joined the
club. And what did not kill them was not making them any stronger.
To the vegetarian hippie, and the meat-eating jock, being healthy was and still is central to the ideal state of young
adulthood. Sexual disease and idealism do not easily co-exist. As having a baby brings with it material concerns, so
sexual disease is a dose of reality. It is natural to want sex, and it is natural to have children. But it is doubtful that
many would want to consider sexual diseases as being natural. Liberationists have historically resented the religious
argument that sexual diseases are the natural [predictable] result of fornication. Catching a sexual disease should not
now be thought of as an inevitable part of sexual expression any more than having a baby is now thought to be.
Birth control and disease prevention and cure rely on science. In a more natural world these devices would not be
available. We use birth control and condoms and take medicines, but we should not inculturate behaviors that
guarantees more babies or diseases if the time comes when these things are not available. The alternative
subcultural will never dominate society, but many will have children. And even though we may not have traditional families we still
need to protect ourselves, our children, and their children from unwanted pregnancies or disease. In that way we
protect the larger culture, keeping our own subculture from being seen as a threat to public health. We have the right
and the know how to engage in sex for pleasure. We should not let that endanger us, physically or spiritually, now or
in the future.
5. love
Making love is physical but being in love is spiritual. The alternative subculture has moved away from the concept of
romantic love but in doing so have given up positive associations that could be applied to more generalized
expressions of love. Being in love feels good and loving good [God] is the prime commandment. It is without a doubt
one of the all time great natural highs. Spiritual ecstasy is similar to romantic love in that it puts the individual into a
blissful state that transcends the normal worries of the world. In terms of parable doctrine, this is a good thing. The
better you feel the less likely you are to become anxious or judgmental, the more likely you are to forgive and accept.
6. simplicity
In food, as in sex, naturalism and simplicity are not always compatible. Where the adherence to naturalism has been
the builder of many an organic farm, simplicity suggests that you ‘eat what is set before you’. How many times has a
hippie embarked on a labor intensive scheme only to become surrounded by the debris of unrealized ambition. If the
spirit is not configured to support hard sustained effort, if it will not be learned, it is better to avoid it.
A non-materialists acceptance is simplicity itself; what ever your druthers might be, defer, [for the moment anyway] to
what is before you. Being lazy, while not the most desirable state, does not have to be fatal. What makes it so is how
you handle it. Do not impose yourself on others and they should not impose on you. In other words, your interactions
have to be free from greed. It is OK to accept the goods and services that are offered to you by individuals or
organizations as long as no debt is incurred. In other words if it is given freely, you may accept it. Debts are forgiven
because they are sins. They are a spiritual burden. You are much better off doing without than manipulating debt.
Give what you feel good about giving without receiving repayment. Good can be simple.
7. activism
Hippies are known for their political and social activism and many of them eventually work for non-profit organizations
and social service agencies. As these workers inculturate their idealism into the mainstream, much of their hippie
identity is sacrificed. When ‘fitting in’ with the dominant culture, the tacit understanding is that some identifiers are
best kept secret. Ideals are more important than identity.
But it was the willingness of the hippies to show [express] themselves that created the public subcultural identity. Their
youth and general disregard for social norms made them the most photographed subculture in history. But even
though it was the news photos of the colorful hippie demonstrators that helped spawn the massive anti-war movement
of the late sixties and early seventies, their home made street theater was dwarfed by the rallies put together by whole
coalitions of white shirt activist-organizers.
The model of non-violence and passive resistance that the hippies got from Martin Luther King’s civil rights movement
coincided nicely with their interests in India. Gandhi, like King, had a spiritual and political conscience. But political
extremists amongst the hippies wanted a revolution with real guns and were successful at organizing large groups
around that idea. But like the revolutionaries among the followers of Jesus [the Zealots], there was little in common
between the ethos of peace and love and the dogma of violent revolution. Hippies are effective activists when their
politics reflects their own lives. They perform a great service to society if they remind them in a loving, humble way
about idealism. Their street theater [protest] is a genuine subcultural art. But just being a recognizable hippie [as
simple as wearing a button] accomplishes much of the goal. But hippies interacting through street protest is like
religious interaction, it does not take the place of practice [common interaction].
8. communalism
The whole point of the good shepherd searching for the lost sheep might not have been so much that the sheep were
lost, as it was that they were on their own. Jesus himself was known to wander off from time to time. And as
independent as a person might be, everyone at least likes to think of themselves as belonging to a group even if they
are seldom actually with one.
Hippies had their own form of homeless shelter, the crash pad, where the most basic rules of hygiene and safety
sufficed as the social order; don’t crap where you sleep and don’t hurt anybody. The next step up the organizational
ladder was the hippie cooperative houses. The shared kitchens and bathrooms meant that agreements had to be
made to keep order. These agreements did not usually last very long. And then there was the famous hippie
communes. Usually structured around an ideal or a cause [a religious commune, a vegetarian commune] the
communes tended to be rule heavy and very personal in their politics.
Communes were attractive because they were cheap and fun. But the encounter group mechanics of keeping one
going tended to consume its members. How much togetherness you can handle is a big determiner of structure.
While the hippies thought they were the new model for American society it made sense to try to work out the living
arrangements. If you can be that conscientious, the whole world is available to you, and some hippies did put together
successful communes, sometimes creating new religious subcultures.
an enduring alternative
Alternative subculture is unique in its range of generational variations, and each alternative subculture has been
strong enough to nurture groups that can survive awhile without any surrender of subcultural identity. But as the
majority of alternatives take their place in the mainstream, the dominant subcultures exert increasing pressure on the
remainder to conform to them. They who endure must maintain identity and idealism before the dominant culture and
the other subcultures. To do this they will have to establish a clear expression of the idealism behind their tolerance
towards recreational drug use so as not to be engulfed by drug subculture. They will have to keep the influence of
the mind expanding joy of learning on their subculture in balance with their other interests so as not to alienate those
less enamored with education. They will have to find ways to present their idealism through popular culture. They
will have to learn how to engage in activism without being co-opted by the non-profit affiliates of the dominant culture. They will have to learn their way around poverty without losing identity to the social service
subcultures. All this they will have to do without being waylaid by advocates of intolerant politics or religion, be it
personal or social in nature. Then they will be able to maintain an ongoing multigenerational presence in their
relationships to the mainstream, other subcultures, and subsequent alt-subcults, without loss of idealism or identity.
By clearly stating the association of any subculture’s idealism with the idealism of parable doctrine, you are connecting
it to the dominant religious tradition. This serves good by defending the humanity of the subculturals of every
generation, satisfying their need for identity, freeing them to internalize the teaching.
END
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)