The Perils of 'Wannabe Cool' Christianity

[Wayne Paul]

Here is an article that was posted Aug 13th on the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704111704575355311122648100.html?K EYWORDS=perils+of+wannabe) website.

[Marsha Lynn]

Here is an article that was posted Aug 13th on the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704111704575355311122648100.html?K EYWORDS=perils+of+wannabe) website.

Wow! That's a great article.

I wonder how many Nazarenes reading it (if many Nazarenes read it at all) will respond by deciding that hanging onto the old wineskins instead of following the culture is the correct response. "Real"? Sure, we're real. Old-fashioned is who we really are. Take it or leave it.

How do we respond when the options come down to being artificially "cool" or being authentically stuck in old paradigms?

D'ya know what I mean, Vern? <--- What happens when I try to be cool. :smilies1722:

Marsha

[Glenn Messer]

I think there is more than 'a little wisdom' in what he writes. In the end, if people perceive that culture dictates the message then inevitably they will ask themselves, "Why do I need church?"

I sometimes think of it like parents who first try to determine what it is their kids want and then try to develop their parenting skills to accommodate those wants ... and then wonder what's wrong with their kids.

[Gary Creely]

Here is an article that was posted Aug 13th on the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704111704575355311122648100.html?K EYWORDS=perils+of+wannabe) website.

There seems to be two major streams churches that are trying, seem to take, one is the "ultra relevant marketing/gimmicky" and the other is "ultra authentic post modern approach". Interesting the later often harbors distain for the former, and in lies the challenge. I personally believe the path lies somewhere between these two approaches. Most churches would benefit from increased marketing, but many feel it is below them or bad stewardship to direct significant resources in that direction. Then you have your ultra post modern churches which IMO are just too weird sometimes.

It seems like in the church we feel we need to be an either or culture, one or the other. I think the most effective churches will borrow tactics from different approaches, but ultimately not loose sight of the fact that we exist to love God, and others.

As a pastor I think one of the most important parts of keeping grounded is pastoral care. Often pastors of hipster type churches either pass that off or simply do very little of it at all.

I was recently on a hospital visit to and older shut in from our church. She had fallen and could not get, and used lifeline to call the ambulance to come (I know exactly like the commercial). She ended up in ICU and that is where I visited her. This had happened on her birthday (89th I think). She was in very rough shape, and she cried to me as she asked why all the pain and suffering was happening, and what was Gods purpose in this. When I prayed for her she requested that I hold her had (not typically my practice), and so I did as we prayed.

I am sure many of you have had these types of experiences (and I have too), but I never get used to it. In that moment I had no clever words or strategic plan, but only the ability to intercede on her behalf. That particular visit deeply effected me, and really helps to frame the big picture of what we the church are to be about. We are about being Gods hands and feet to hurting people, in a hurting world. If we do not accomplish that it really makes no difference what approach we take because we will be little more than a resounding gong.

[Susan Unger]

Oh, ugh... Mentalities like described in the article just drive me batty.

[Scott Moseley]

Great article .. I'd like to read more of his book. I had an experience in a "seeker church" for 2 years in a Dallas area fellowship which had a whole lot going on in a positive way, but yet I also was turned off by how " Cool" n "extreme" many in leadership seemed to strive. Movie clips were nearly always shown, everyone wore Jeans, Long Sideburns seemed totally in, U2 n Bono were oft quoted in the same breath as Henri Nouwen, A rock band typically opened and closed services... And in spite of it all, the message was dynamic and exuded Christ's love and acceptance and the need to turn to HIM. I liked it , loved it, and hated it. The church went to extremes to be a non traditional church..with every vestige of tradionalism forgotten. I often felt like; "great message, now can we have some peace, quite and tranquility to hear the Spirt speak. and Its OK to sing a hymn every now and then, and to exhort the belivers to bring their bibles to church ."

[Sarah Smith]

No big surprise in the fact I liked the article and agreed with it......after all, the church is the called out ones.

But it can get worse than what he described: take an area like ours where wranglers and ropers are formal wear, where country music is all you hear everywhere, and where being called old fashioned is a compliment, with only a few rappers/wannabe urbanites.

Then came the "cool church" phenomenon. Went over like a lead balloon in this town.

Just as I would expect cowboy church would flop in San Francisco or Newark.

Mostly we find people that will actually come to church come looking for a churchy church.

And those that won't come to a churchy church won't come to any other kind for long either.

[Billy Cox]

Here is an article that was posted Aug 13th on the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704111704575355311122648100.html?K EYWORDS=perils+of+wannabe) website.

And all of the unrepentantly uncool Nazarenes said, "Amen." Would this be a good time to bring out the 'Irrelevant and Proud' T-shirts? :smilies0150:

[Kevin Rector]

Wow! That's a great article.

Did we read the same article? I found it ironic that the author posits the "hipster" church culture to a marketing response by middle aged baby boomer church leaders and that is held up over against a church that is "real". Yet, a lot of the "hipster" churches are "hipster" because they were founded by "hipsters". They ARE being real to who they are and are not necessarily being cool as an attempt at marketing - maybe they are just cool people.

Now, sometimes people look at how successful Mars Hill is (either one) and they try to copy that, same thing happened with Willow Creek and Saddleback. Don't blame Mars Hill for it, blame the lame (aka - not cool) pastors who want to be something that they are not.

[Marsha Lynn]

Did we read the same article? I found it ironic that the author posits the "hipster" church culture to a marketing response by middle aged baby boomer church leaders and that is held up over against a church that is "real". Yet, a lot of the "hipster" churches are "hipster" because they were founded by "hipsters". They ARE being real to who they are and are not necessarily being cool as an attempt at marketing - maybe they are just cool people.

Now, sometimes people look at how successful Mars Hill is (either one) and they try to copy that, same thing happened with Willow Creek and Saddleback. Don't blame Mars Hill for it, blame the lame (aka - not cool) pastors who want to be something that they are not.

Maybe the difference is that I don't know any authentically "cool" church leaders. (If they're really "cool," who put them in charge of something so sacred as the church?) I'm much more familiar with church "copycats."

[Shea Zellweger]

Maybe the difference is that I don't know any authentically "cool" church leaders. (If they're really "cool," who put them in charge of something so sacred as the church?) I'm much more familiar with church "copycats."

It seems to me that this is the way of 90% of all churches- take the "Ancient-Future" phenomenon as a recent example. A few churches here and there had this idea to reconnect with the faith of the Fathers (first few centuries of Christianity), and apply it to the contemporary context. So they discovered that a lot of the early church Fathers engaged in certain experiential actions designed to center both body and soul on Christ, rather than using the dualistic approach which attempted to center the soul on Christ while the body was mostly uninvolved, thereby turning worship into a mental exercise. Many people found this "new" expression of faith resonated with who and what they were as people and as Christians. Books were written about the actions- because any time something works once, there has to be a book- and other churches started trying to do the same thing. Some of those "copycat" churches had excellent reasons for doing so- their congregations had been seeking to worship in a different, more resonant way, and this "Ancient-future" approach struck them as being exactly what they'd been looking for. Others found that some in their church wanted to take the approach, and decided to have the whole church go along with it. Still others saw the positive impact it had on the originals, the first group of copycats, and somewhat the second group, and thought perhaps those churches had found "the secret" to "doing church," and decided to follow suit. And one final group saw how popular the movement was getting and decided to go along with the crowd and do the next big thing. I would argue that the originals and the first group of copycats I described are both "authentic" and "cool." The second group of copycats were well-meaning, and some among them were "authentic," but to some extent they were just imitating for imitation's sake. The final two groups were inauthentic, and so the "cool" factor was undermined by their lack of authenticity.

You could replace the phrase "Ancient Future" and its description with the label and description of almost every other church movement to hit the speaking tour circuit in the last 40-1900 years, and the pattern would be strikingly similar.

[Marsha Lynn]

Thanks, Shea. It seems that followers of Yahweh are hopelessly enamored with the idea of having someone else approach the "thick darkness where God [is]" and bring the word of the Lord back to us. After all, if, while wandering hopelessly in the darkness, you run across someone else who has received answers that work directly from God, it seems a shame to keep looking. Unfortunately, as you noted, new ideas tend to work best for those closest to the Source of them, perhaps because they come customized for the seeker.


Exodus 20:18 -- "Speak to us yourself and we will listen. But do not have God speak to us or we will die."Just tell us what God is doing in the church today and give us the marketing materials so we too can be successful.

[Shea Zellweger]

Thanks, Shea. It seems that followers of Yahweh are hopelessly enamored with the idea of having someone else approach the "thick darkness where God [is]" and bring the word of the Lord back to us. After all, if you are wandering hopelessly in the darkness and run across someone else who has received answers directly from God and those answers that are working for them, it seems a shame to keep looking. Unfortunately, as you noted, new ideas tend to work best for those closest to the Source of them.

Just tell us what God is doing in the church today and give us the marketing materials so we too can be successful.

I agree. There is a chasm of difference between "hey, this church is doing something that I would really love to try" and "you know, ____ church is having a lot of success with this..." I am hesitant to question someone's adaptation of another church's program- after all, there's usually not much point in reinventing the wheel, as it were. But it does seem to me that regardless of the new "thing," the minority of churches who use it are churches that do so for the "right" reasons, and in my experience the difference is often very noticeable.

[Ryan Plott]

"If the evangelical Christian leadership thinks that "cool Christianity" is a sustainable path forward, they are severely mistaken. As a twentysomething, I can say with confidence that when it comes to church, we don't want cool as much as we want real.

If we are interested in Christianity in any sort of serious way, it is not because it's easy or trendy or popular. It's because Jesus himself is appealing, and what he says rings true. It's because the world we inhabit is utterly phony, ephemeral, narcissistic, image-obsessed and sex-drenched—and we want an alternative. It's not because we want more of the same."

My experience is different than McCracken's so take this with a grain of salt but the quote above from the article really got me to thinking.

Alot of the twenty-somethings I know aren't leaving the church because of glitzy marketing skills or metrosexual pastors. Most of the twenty-somethings I know leave the church because it isn't real, it's phony, ephemeral, narcissistic, image-obsessed and sex-drenched. I would like to know if McCracken has seen a church that I haven't. The twenty-somethings I know go out looking for an alternative spiritual outlet that will be real, concrete, deep, Christ-centered, and others-obsessed. Needless to say, they never find it.

Those twenty-somethings either never come back to the church or really begin to look at the church the way God sees it and learn to love it despite its faults. This makes me think, perhaps what we should be looking for isn't an alternative or escape from the "phoniness" of church, but a re-focus on the belief that the church is the bride of Christ and is continually being transformed and newly created. Maybe then both McCracken and myself would begin to see twenty-somethings follow the way of Christ rather than let some people's and church's "narcissim" cause them to leave so that they can find a kind of church they want to worship at.

My idea is that what's needed most isn't a perfect kind of church but a different lens by which we view the church. We shouldn't be looking for alternatives, we should be looking to love the church we are at. You can't change anyone or anything until you love them. I really think that's the message the people in my generation need to hear in their thought about the church.

[Billy Cox]

I am hesitant to question someone's adaptation of another church's program- after all, there's usually not much point in reinventing the wheel, as it were.

Whenever I hear this line of reasoning, I want to call the metaphor police. Whereas a wheel is a simple machine, an organization such as a church is a complex organism, replete with people. Even if the newest church program was like an inflatable raft that would requirevirtually no effort to deploy, there is still the question of the context in which such a raft makes sense and what type of skills and people are required for the raft to be used for its intended purpose.

Many churches go all out for the inflatable raft and then find that their context calls for a sailboat or submarine.


But it does seem to me that regardless of the new "thing," the minority of churches who use it are churches that do so for the "right" reasons, and in my experience the difference is often very noticeable.

Generally speaking, I don't think that misplaced motives are the fatal flaw. More likely, a church tries to imitate the finished product rather than asking about the process by which the product was envisioned, refined, evaluated, and perfected.

Just because I see a classic Mustang at a car show does not make me qualified to go home and build one myself.

[Tami Martin]

Good article and some interesting thoughts about it.

My thought was that this is a lot of work for the 18-22 demographic.

I tried to teach my kids that if they loved someone, they should be themselves and if the person wanted to go elsewhere...let them. If their "love" came back, it was theirs. Same with church. So many kids who grew up in churches and Christian homes don't "get it" before they are 17 or 18. So when the opportunity presents itself, they leave. But if real seed was planted, it will bear fruit.

I'd like to see those numbers reflecting that same age cohort at 30 or 35. How many of those kids who left the church at 20 came back when they "grew up" and had kids of their own? How many found God later and came back to the church of their youth?

[John Kennedy]

As a music/worship planner/leader, some of my most unpleasant memories were of pastors who, after exposure to some 'church growth guru' and a superficial look at what some nearby mega-church was doing would decide to graft on this, that, or the other gimmick that didn't relate to our context.

[Steven Martinez]

Did we read the same article? I found it ironic that the author posits the "hipster" church culture to a marketing response by middle aged baby boomer church leaders and that is held up over against a church that is "real". Yet, a lot of the "hipster" churches are "hipster" because they were founded by "hipsters". They ARE being real to who they are and are not necessarily being cool as an attempt at marketing - maybe they are just cool people.

Now, sometimes people look at how successful Mars Hill is (either one) and they try to copy that, same thing happened with Willow Creek and Saddleback. Don't blame Mars Hill for it, blame the lame (aka - not cool) pastors who want to be something that they are not.

Thanks Kevin for your post. I thought the same thing last night when I read the article. The sad reality is that the modern day church has traditional failed to make significant headway with the 18-22 year old group. Sure college churches have a play because of location. But generally speaking the church market does not make a strong play for a group of people who have no money, are flighty and will leave the community in 4-5 years. I am not saying this is right. It seems that the Church just struggles with how to truly serve people who just might not be able to truly give back to the church in the traditional means.

[Marsha Lynn]

Thanks Kevin for your post. I thought the same thing last night when I read the article. The sad reality is that the modern day church has traditional failed to make significant headway with the 18-22 year old group. Sure college churches have a play because of location. But generally speaking the church market does not make a strong play for a group of people who have no money, are flighty and will leave the community in 4-5 years. I am not saying this is right. It seems that the Church just struggles with how to truly serve people who just might not be able to truly give back to the church in the traditional means.

I sat on a bench in the church foyer beside a young man from the 18- to 22-year-old group yesterday morning. After a bit of chit-chat, I asked him if he had made any life-changing decisions since we last chatted on Wednesday evening. Like then, he wasn't ready to talk about it. I see that classes start next Monday at his school of choice. I found out from him Wednesday that he isn't registered yet. I presume he is struggling with the pressure of deciding what to do this semester. When he declined to discuss it, I let it go and simply sat by him a while longer watching the fellowship happening around us. It added another few moments to the many moments we have spent observing life together. I accept whatever friendship he offers and am ready to listen if and when he chooses to talk.

Later, I pondered the exchange aloud with another young man just beyond that age group. Who does the first young man have for confidantes and advisers? Other than his parents, we didn't come up with much and I don't know how much he's talking to them. The church seems to be his primary social group but he's struggling even there.

Would a "hipster" church make a difference? Does a "cool" church offer better support for those difficult years than a "fuddy-duddy" church?

Actually, in this case, I'm pretty sure that even authentic "coolness" would be an obstacle to be overcome in a church rather than an asset. The fleeting nature of "cool" makes it hard to grab onto as something stable and dependable while maneuvering through the rapids of those transition years. Will the "hipsters" be content to do authentic ministry when they can no longer keep up with the latest and greatest trend? This particular young man has no hesitancy about dismissing as "uncool" what others are touting as the new "cool."

I think the point of the article is that authenticity is a far greater asset than "cool," and most people trying to do "cool" lack authenticity. It's good news to me -- not because I want to be out of touch with the culture, but because, like most church people, I never have been and likely never will be "cool." (Doesn't being part of a church automatically kill "coolness" to some extent?) But I can be authentic in my love for young adults.

There's a wide difference between dismissing every new trend with scorn (along with those following it) and being an interested observer of the culture (and those immersed in it) without buying into its values. You and Kevin seem to be taking the stance that the writer is extending approval to Christians who dismiss the culture (and those living by its values) as not worth one's time. Sure, there are plenty of people doing that, but I think there's a lot of room between those two extreme positions and I'm glad to see someone encouraging people to look for an authentic and stable place to stand while ministering to postmoderns.

"God must be God and love must be enough." "Cool" is not love when put on as an outer garment for the sake of ministry. It more closely resembles idolatry -- worship of the wrong thing.

Marsha

[Marsha Lynn]

Thinking about this as I listen to my music shuffle:

I listen to cool music. There are around 3,000 songs shuffling on my computer. All of them are cool! Of course, different songs are cool with different groups. Beck is cool with a different group than MercyMe which is cool with a different group than David Lanz (new age piano music) which is cool with a different group than the Beatles which is cool with a different group than Willie Nelson. Some of the music in my shuffle is even too cool for me -- such as Beck. I wouldn't know enough to choose it. It just somehow appeared in my computer files and I decided to keep it. Other selections go so far beyond my coolness that I delete them as they shuffle through. Some of those came from my daughter when she was teenage cool way back in the early 2000s. Being young adult cool now, she has long since deleted them from her play list and looks shocked when she hears them come up in my mix.)

If I decided to base my ministry around cool music, how would I decide which of my vast collection of cool music to focus on? Every genre would make me "cool" with some demographics and "uncool" with others. The total eclectic mix might make me cool with some people, but others would dismiss me with a sniff based on a few cool-killer selections. Plus I haven't added anything new for a while. Coolness is surely slipping away as I fall behind in my music selection process.

How in the world does anyone do "cool" for ministering to an entire congregation?

[David Pettigrew]

I appreciated this article, because I am just about tired of feeling worried when young families visit my church because it isn't cool enough.

Just offer authentic relationship with your community, and let that relationship express itself however it expresses itself. If it comes out cool and trendy, so be it, but don't aim for cool and trendy.

[Billy Cox]

"God must be God and love must be enough." "Cool" is not love when put on as an outer garment for the sake of ministry. It more closely resembles idolatry -- worship of the wrong thing.

I don't think that the Church of the Nazarene has much to worry about in the area of coolness, whether authentic or not. :)

A denomination does not heap contempt on popular culture for the better part of a century and then suddenly care about having an accurate read on what's in and what's out.

As for churches that try to be cool when their leadership is most decidedly uncool, I wouldn't call that idolatry, but I would compare it to a cross-cultural missionary who tries to pass him/herself as a native speaker of the indigenous language and doesn't quite pull it off. It's not a sin to make a fool of oneself in a sad and pathetic way.

[Billy Cox]

As a music/worship planner/leader, some of my most unpleasant memories were of pastors who, after exposure to some 'church growth guru' and a superficial look at what some nearby mega-church was doing would decide to graft on this, that, or the other gimmick that didn't relate to our context.

been there, done that...burned the t-shirt.

[Billy Cox]

I appreciated this article, because I am just about tired of feeling worried when young families visit my church because it isn't cool enough.

Just offer authentic relationship with your community, and let that relationship express itself however it expresses itself. If it comes out cool and trendy, so be it, but don't aim for cool and trendy.

Marsha already alluded to the context-specificity of coolness. I have noticed that those who are cool don't skitter about in pursuit of cool.

[Glenn Harris]

This reminds me a little of a child rearing class I attended years ago when my daughter was a baby. One of the most profound things I heard from the instructor was in warning the parents not to mistake sophistication for maturity. Kids today are much more sophisticated than we were but that doesn't translate to maturity. A 9 year old may talk like a 16 year old but they are still a 9 year old and not a 16 year old in a 9 year old body.

One of the things I took from the article was the danger of mistaking trendy for relevant. Just because it's current, doesn't mean it's relevant and if a 20something can't tell the difference between the world and the church, there a lot better ways to spend a sunday morning than in church. Just as many of the things that made the church work in the 50's and 60's are dead and gone, (some of them not fast enough) doesn't mean that if it is new it is right or if it is old it is wrong. I digress back to a sermon I once heard from Chuck Milhuff (Bicentennial Celebration in KC) which basically used the premise that the easel changes but the painter stays the same. You have to make it relevant but at the same time you have to keep the distinctives that set it apart from the world in the first place. That isn't found in the clothes we wear or the food we eat or any of the other "things" that people are all too fast to shove on us as being "God's will". We aren't called on to wear sack cloth and ashes (or to conform to someone else's idea of appearance) but we are called on to live a life that is pleasing to God and an example to the world of a life that can be in the world but isn't of the world.

[Steven Martinez]

There's a wide difference between dismissing every new trend with scorn (along with those following it) and being an interested observer of the culture (and those immersed in it) without buying into its values. You and Kevin seem to be taking the stance that the writer is extending approval to Christians who dismiss the culture (and those living by its values) as not worth one's time. Sure, there are plenty of people doing that, but I think there's a lot of room between those two extreme positions and I'm glad to see someone encouraging people to look for an authentic and stable place to stand while ministering to postmoderns.

"God must be God and love must be enough." "Cool" is not love when put on as an outer garment for the sake of ministry. It more closely resembles idolatry -- worship of the wrong thing.

Marsha

Well I will not speak for Kevin but for me the issue with the article is one where a 27 year old is making a claim that ministry designed for 40-50 year olds is somehow not authentic. One of the greatest lessons I learned in school was from a professor who reminded me not to demonize my parents' church. Their church is authentic to serving the real needs of a generation I am not a part of. I had to realize that I needed to find another congregation that had need of my gifts in their congregation. It did not mean they were wrong or I was wrong. I had nothing wrong with the call to find a congregation that is authentically seeking the Gospel. I just found it disturbing that the author felt the need to call out specific churches and pastors and labeling their ministry as simply being trendy or inauthentic. I might not be a fan of Rick Warren or his style of ministry but I am thankful that his approach to ministry helped reach my parents for Christ. I guess my issue is that I feel that many in my generation (I am 30) are very quick to point out something as inauthentic but offer very little in what is authentic and often make not being "cool" as being really "cool." Look at the EMO movement for crying out loud. I guess there is a fine line between being prophetic and being a complainer. IMHO I felt the author crossed the line.