Before getting into the main point of this post, indulge a little parental pride. This weekend I went (twice!) to Joplin High School to see Footloose, the 1998 musical based on the 1984 John Lithgow film. (I said what I said.) I was blown away by the show and not just because both Ragsdale girls were performing. The talent of these students mixed with their hard work was undeniable. My youngest daughter, Ryane, got her first taste in a high school musical playing in the ensemble. My oldest daughter, Addy, played Ariel, the wild and rebellious preacher’s daughter. I know she’s my daughter, but goodness, she did so well. I won’t lie though. There were parts of the musical that were rough. The fact that Addy is a real life preacher’s daughter (and grand daughter) made it difficult to watch her rebellion against a distant and overbearing dad. I was reminded many times that “it’s just acting, dad.” Add to this the fact that I lost a sister and my parents, a daughter, in a tragic car accident, and let’s just say that some of the emotional moments hit pretty close to home.
One idea that I couldn’t shake while watching the show is how alien this whole story must seem to the high school students performing it. I mean, the story is strange for some obvious reasons. The plot is ridiculous. A group of small town high school students led by a rebellious kid from the big city engages the complex world of municipal politics to overturn a law against dancing?1 Oh, and the law was put into place through the efforts of the local preacher, Reverend Shaw Moore, who is concerned about the moral corruption of the youths.2 We are told that Reverend Moore is so respected and powerful in the town that he IS the law in the town. Sure. I’m not convinced that the world of Bomont, Utah exists as anything other than a fantasy, but it seems like it would be more at home in 1954 than in 1984. It definitely isn’t at home in 2024.
Bomont reflects a cartoonish version of what Aaron Renn calls the positive world. The positive world is one where society retains a mostly positive view of Christianity. In the positive world, the local pastor would experience a great deal of power and respect in the local community and the church would be an essential gathering place for community life. To never attend church in the positive world would be regarded as a minor scandal. Of course in the movie, the traditional values of the positive world are coming into conflict with a competing set of values. Eventually this competition gives way to the neutral world where Christianity is no longer given a privileged status in a society but must compete in a pluralistic marketplace of ideas. In a positive world, Christian belief is assumed. In a neutral world, Christian belief must make its case. Eventually, the neutral world gives way to the negative world where society has an overall negative view of Christianity. Christianity is not a viable option for society even though it may still have personal relevance for individuals or groups. In the negative world, the church has largely lost power and influence and many regard the pastor with hostility or, in some cases, pity. Renn dates the positive world from 1964-1994, the neutral world from 1994-2014, and the negative world from 2014 to today. He uses three sex scandals to illustrate the difference. In 1988, Gary Hart was a front runner for the Democratic nomination for President, but he had to drop out of the race when it was revealed that he had an extramarital affair. In 1988, it was still possible to be scandalized – regardless of party – by adultery. The assumption within society was that those running for public office should be of the highest character and virtue. The mood of the country was different in 1998 when it was revealed that President Clinton had a sexual encounter with Monica Lewinsky in the Oval Office. The message from the Democratic Party in 1998 is that a person’s private life should have no bearing on his public status. This is life in the neutral world. In 2016, it was the Republican Party’s opportunity to compromise on the importance of morality. In the negative world of 2016, violations of Christian morality were no big deal to some the very people who just a handful of years earlier were trying to run Clinton out of office. By 2016, Republicans just wanted power. This is life in the negative world.
There is an argument to be made that Renn’s analysis and dating are far too simplistic. That’s always the risk of books like his that are attempting to make sense of cultural changes. What I don’t think can be debated is that we do, in fact, live in a negative world. The students performing Footloose and those of us watching do not live in the (more) positive world of the 1980’s. We live in the negative world of 2024 where the idea of a town passing a law at the behest of a pastor seems even more laughable and weird than it did in 1984.
So what does this mean? Well, there are three options in the negative world. We could choose nostalgia for the positive world which just seems like a waste of time. I don’t see much point in wistfully longing for a day that might not have existed in the first place and definitely doesn’t exist today. Besides, there were elements of the positive world that might be better left in the past anyway. We could choose denial and continue to operate as if we live in different times. We could continue to talk about “cultural engagement,” “cultural transformation,” and “culture wars” as if we are still in a position of cultural power – all strategies of the neutral world. This approach is bound to be only marginally effective in the short term and doomed to failure in the long term. The third option is to recognize the reality of the negative world and to prepare our churches, ourselves, and our children to live countercultural lives of committed faith in this day. This doesn’t mean giving in to pessimism or despair. I believe that we can flourish in a negative world. In fact, the church has often flourished when it has inhabited a negative world. But the first step is recognizing that we live in different times.
- Movies about the power of dance were weirdly popular in the 80s. I don’t have any explanation for it. It was a different time. ↩︎
- Side point. I didn’t notice until last night that Reverend Moore preaches at First Christian Church in Bomont, UT. So is Reverend Moore a Restorationist? Where did he go to Bible college? Was he friends with any of my professors when he was in seminary? I’m guess he’s about 40 years old in 1984 which means he would likely have entered into ministry around the time that the Disciples of Christ were veering into liberalism. Was Reverend Moore’s legalism born as a reaction to liberalism? And how did he end up in a tiny town in Utah? This only seems possible if he is from Utah originally which opens up the possibility that he grew up LDS and then at some point deconverted perhaps against his own parents’ wishes. I have so many questions. ↩︎
Chad Ragsdale 
Leave a comment