I also think it’s wrong to equate being a good Christian with obeying authority blindly; after all, Jesus was a revolutionary Jew and if we wanted to be unthinkingly submissive we could turn to Islam (which I’m sure you know means submission).

Surely the message of Jesus is to live peaceful lives while constantly questioning and challenging society’s attitudes towards ostracised minority groups (in his time for instance prostitutes, in our time perhaps gays), because God alone can judge, and God loves every sinner equally.

And the ‘failure’ of past youth movements is also debatable. If the 60s flower power generation hadn’t questioned oldfashioned attitudes towards sexuality, lots of young women would probably still be dying for trying to perform abortions with wire clothes hangers. And I don’t just mean ‘promiscuous’ girls who had premarital sex; even married women would sometimes do this because they simply couldn’t afford having another child without starving.The contraceptive pill has done much to remedy this.

If young people hadn’t questioned and challenged authority, women would still be staying at home and wearing skirts, and men would be unable to admit they love spending time with their children more than they the office.

The world changes, and we need to change with it. This does not mean we can’t at the same time be good Christians. Being a bad Christian to me means unquestioningly clinging onto archaic notions of what is right and wrong, and putting ourselves in the place of God by constantly judging other people who are different than us.

I don’t have time to respond to your other comments, but for the sake of our readers I must say that I disagree with most of them — especially your interpretation of the message of Jesus and the allegedly positive consequences of the youth rebellion in the 1960’s.

Your examples of progress seem markedly “clichéd.” Purposeful or not you sound like you view many of these issues through a liberal lense.

I agree with several of your premises, but cannot say the same of your conclusions. For instance, I agree that we cannot simply accept everything without question. However, I entirely disagree with your “positive” examples of young people doing so.

Your contribution to the discussion is respected. However, I would ask that you refrain from even implied insults. For instance, if I were to say, “Being a bad Christian to me means unquestioningly clinging to modern liberal notions of what is progress, and putting ourselves in the place of God by constantly judging other people who are different than us,” you would most likely be offended. Please treat us with the same consideration.

As long as the discussion stays civil, disagreement can be healthy. If you are willing, and if any of our readers would like to (civilly) take up this discussion, that’s fine. With the exceptions of the “official response” posited above, Alex and I must bow out.

In the case of the Rebelution, you have the blessings and support of those elders whom you respect, so in that sense, you are not rebelling against the authority which matters. I think that is important. But if the governing authority is corrupt, then is it not right to rebel?

“Surely the message of Jesus is to live peaceful lives while constantly questioning and challenging society’s attitudes towards ostracised minority groups….”
Are you sure that Jesus’ ministry can be summarised in this way? This sounds more political than religious and by these standards anyone can be Christian even if he or she does not profess Christ as Lord, or even denies the fact outright. Jesus’ care for these minority groups stemmed out of His great love for all people and His desire to save them. He accepted them for who they were, yes, but then He called them to higher, better things. I don’t have time to respond to your other points just now, though I hope to do so in the near future.

Finally, if I have in any way offended you, I apologize now, as it was not my intent to do so. Please confront me with any insulting remarks I have made, and I will try to better explain myself and learn from my mistakes.

Yet still, moderation is needed - in the words of the wise man (Ecclesiastes 3), “1There is a time for everthing…

7 a time to tear and a time to mend,
a time to be silent and a time to speak,

8 a time to love and a time to hate,
a time for war and a time for peace.”

Neither an absolute adherence to dissent nor an absolute adherence to blind devotion is appropriate. I would disagree with J’sGirlfriend when she says that our notion of teenage rebellion is completely cultural. While I agree our culture has perhaps thrown it out of whack, teenagers in nearly every culture throughout history have shown some signs of independence. This is natural and necessary. If there was no desire in the young adult to branch out and try to forge his own way, people would simply stay like children forever, depending on their parents until they kicked them out and they would not “leave his[their] father and mother and be united to his wife[their spouse].”

On the other hand, authority is absolutely necessary for the preservation of the order of society. I have seen few instances where a rebellious spirit resulted in anything good. The rebellious spirit wishes to throw out the old and bring in the new. This is often necessary if the old is corrupted, but if this spirit is not carefully controlled, it will soon throw out the new for the newer and so on until chaos reigns and no system, no matter how effective, can be maintained. This is the downfall of youth movements that rely on a rebellious spirit.

It would be helpful to point out that there are two distinct kinds of rebellion: political and cultural.

So what is an appropriate rebellion? It is one that:
1st) identifies a specific problem in the current authority or system that cannot be dealt with internally and is too great to be endured
2nd) clearly erects a new system or authority that solves this problem
3rd) implements this new system or authority
4th) stops

An example of this could be found in the American Revolution. There was a specific problem with the previously existing British authority that could not be solved internally. The first step the founding fathers took, it should be noted, was to establish a new authority and place themselves under it. They acted to remove the previous corrupt authority, implemented the new authority to solve the problem and, as soon as their mission was complete, halted the rebellion.

Any successful revolution (or Rebelution) must have its focus clearly directed on the specific goal (in this case, a transforming of our society), and not on the idea of rebellion itself. If the society is suddenly transformed into the type of positive culture the Rebelutionaries seek (though that will never completely happen), they obviously cannot continue trying to change it and the rebelution will end.