Ponderings on Proclaimers and the Revolution

Part two of the `bee in ben's bonnet`

Oceana's first, final and ultimate defence from collapse was its inward indoctrination of the party members and the proletariat into hyper-patriotism of the party. Part three of the novel, if you need reminding, has O'Brien explaining to Winston that Oceana is an inpenetrable, indestructable institution because the proletariat will never revolt while they're in a constant state of subsistence as a result of the ongoing war. Not only does the war give the proletariat a common motivation - whether that be to listen to talks or ralleigh together, but also forces a mass of people into a common entity against a common enemy in much the same way as the inhabitanat of a city is pushed into supporting the football team it boasts. While the people are in one accord and the state is [deliberately] kept devoid of an abundant enough central resource for the same proletariat to be educated enough to realise its own exploitation, they will never revolt, and will follow like sheep.

``knowledge and human power are synonymous, since the ignorance of the cause frustrates the effect`` - Sir Francis Bacon

The church of old has been attributed to one regrettable truth: the oppression of the free thinkers. Whether that be 16th century mathematician Johannes Keplar; reformer monk Martin Luther or outspoken Scottish revolutionary John Knox, these people all lay claim to the fact that the conventional church of the time oppresed them and their wild thoughts - even until death until they were vindicated by history some years later at the expense of the credibility of the church itself.

Today, we wonder why the church would bother to expend so much as a second glance at such non-inflamatory isssues, but considering the power and influence of the church of our past, it's clear to see the link between Oceana's desire to control and the church's by means of the oppression of the masses by the monopoly of their education and culture.

People like Carl and Laura and others are getting into this growing revival about emerging church who's elect could be described as those who take their teachnig about church culture and worship from the Bible and their own relationship with Christ, and (arguably dangerously) moderate their personal thinking by reducing the imperative from the words spoken from the pulpit or the dogma of the church generations (there's more to emergentism than that though!). It could be said that a new generation of Chrstian is dawnig governed by the postmodernstic attitudes which are infiltrating our society. A new type of Christian who transposes the role of church on their life, a new type of Christian who asks the questions that cripples the bourgeois of the church on the grounds that the church shouldn't police its own role in society and its role in the wider Church [of Christ].

So herein lie to starkly opposing paradigms.
One: A relic of the past which leads by control and telling people what's best for them, whether that's as a result of church docterine or `church leaders` who try and pastor certain people on a personal level (even to the extreme I know of where they tell people their dietry needs)... A secure model of church and modern in its thinking.
Two: A model of church which begins with the learned and experienced Christian and the confidence that their relationship with God grants them a clear enough path to truth, and the tolerence of other Christian's beliefs (while not quite the wrong side of pluralistic). A model where the emphasis on church is a vehicle towards outreach and truth, rather than a self informed absolute to be followed.

Alas, the internecine nature of these two dicta antagonise one another by their mere nature... Tom Sharp once wrote ``if a little knowledge is dangerous , then alot is lethal``.

Without digressing any further, I've been thinking today as to which of these models Proclaimers fits. On the one hand, the loud music, strobe lighting, and not letting anyone over thirty or who isn't a pastor on stage seem quite post modern, even seeker-sensative, but aside from these asthetics and slogans promoting `Church without the boring bits`: my experiences, and those of those close to me seem to unveil a heirachial controling absolutist structure. Beneath the pomp and distraction of being urged to worship loudly and the resurection of those high school popularity/fitting-in instincts, the unorthadoxy of the outliar is quashed like a renaissance astronomer in the vatican!

My personal experiences involve being disparaged by Tom Rawls to my friends (behind my back about me being a sinner); having my views deleted from a public web forum after Tom Rawls took exception to them being announced; and after I asked the same man to explain something further after an evening at Proclaimers four months later, my questions were not answered (or considered!), but the issue of my forum post thinking bought me into interrogation (and then again by other `leaders`).

I think what's sad about Proclaimers is the way in which, like Oceana, it is so inwardly involved and supported. As Oceana keeps at war - so does the church in its war against what Procla imers would call `the world`. In the same way that Oceana don't educate its people with enough to see their state as it is, so does Proclaimers shield its people (by the active disparagement of not only `the world`, but specifically other churches as I have seen when they harass the innocent public on Gentleman's Walk). At the end of the day, the thought police are rife in the church. Not jumping at the appropriate times is looked on with what I felt as contempt; not being psyched at certain campaigns also has the same effect, even those as farcical as `rage against beige`. And most of all, the signs of possible thought crime are met with a strong talking to from Tom Rawls himself. The church culture paints a very narrow line to walk. Even the awesome website has essays to the effect. Subtle things like the tone of the welcome team or the choice of sermon or caliber of preacher or current campaigns (eg, rage against beige - the battle against a normal carriage in life) all point towards a very modern imposing monster of a church... Which, as i said, pertends to a far too inwardly involved church, self supportive: a hunter whos primary weapon is its seeker sensative nature, and it's kill the unquestionable dictum. All the time, idolising itself.

This is another curious trait of any church but predominant to the megachurches - their own idolisation. The media of Hillsong or the imposure of the state by the church in America by moral-religious blackmail. Take for example how many times proclaimers mentions the name `Tom Rawls` in a service, or how many songs they perform which aren't either their own or Hillsong. One experience I had was when Tom and the inner party went to Hillsong-London and they came back and said words such as ``you should have seen the way they treated Tom... shaking his hang and talking to him with such respect``... that's not only idolatory of their hosts but also of their pastor. Other times have seen Awesome talk about how far its come and congratulating itself on such a journey on how a handful of committed talented people have grown into the people they are now.

Again, without any further digression: Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels have to be the masters of the revolution, and their famous words were:

``let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. they have a world to win...`` - Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels

Perhaps what makes Church different to politics is that chuch has the ultimate scapegoat - the buck doens't stop with them but with God. This higher get-out-of-jail-free card grants licence to impose, be the absolute and to govern the people as intently as the Bible itself can be read. And as such, Proclaimers and the mega-church have to be more powerful than Oceana. The only flaw Oceana ever had was that it was its own absolute, O'Brien said ``... come on, Winston, why do you REALLY think we go to such pains?... Power, pure power``, also, the principles of Ingsoc are only as malleable as the party say it is, and are only concrete because the party says they are as such. However, church has the licence to off load these issues of power and absolutism while retaining the perks of thoughtcrime and policing its people as vehemently as is tolerable within the paper confinds of the modern church - picking and choosing between the old and new testament churches... eg, insisting on the tythe of the old testament but ignoring the parts of the old testament it finds awkward. or saying when a person is a sinner and telling them to stop sinning.