Wannabe-cool Christianity

I haven’t read McCracken’s book (although I have read the CT article), so take me with a grain of salt, but it seems to me that McCracken fundamentally misunderstands the phenomenon he’s critiquing.

Note how he suggests at one point that the emerging movement is dead. More than a few of those currently in the emerging movement were a bit surprised to learn of their demise!

But, perhaps more to the point, I think those leaders would be as offended to be told that “being cool” is their goal as anyone! The goal is worshiping God! They’re just seeking to do so in a way that is more meaningful (to those that it IS more meaningful to, at least) than worship methods of a previous generation have been.

I read the WSJ article a few weeks back and just read the CT (though have not read the McCracken book). Interesting study. Just like every cultural movement of the past 100 years, this hipster thing is just another way to try and reach folks in a way that resonates with who they see themselves to be in this world.

Is this really a “cooling” down of the church? Or is it more an understanding of the cross cultural appeal of Christ? If being cool or “relevant” was all it took, then there are 1500 different denominations in the US (okay maybe not 1500…;-)) with as many different representations of community, worship, ethos, etc., that each person in the US could find a church that was cool/liturgical/trendy/geeky/hipster/nerdy/old school/traditional enough to suit their needs/desires. America is the Wal-Mart of church options! But who shops at Wal-Mart – people looking for the cheapest deal possible…(that’s a whole other blogpost).

Obviously its a deeper issue than this that is closing the doors of churches across the country. As people feel they connect, they’ll connect – whether its to a pastor & congregation wearing skinny jeans, piercings & tattoos or people wearing suits & ties, dresses, etc. If you’re not being yourself, it won’t matter how cool/uncool you are – people will see through it and doors will close.

I think people love Driscoll because he says what they want to hear – and what they don’t want to hear in a way that gives them the space to let the spirit move. He stirs it up and it is an attractive message. Is his approach right or wrong? Or is it the context of him being authentically himself, catching onto what the spirit is doing in Ballard (and other parts of the Seattle area) and doing what he feels called to? If all pastors had the courage to be this way, instead of hiding behind the box they’ve been told to stay in, they might get fired, but there might be more Mars Hills out there. Do we have that kind of faith?