Thoughs on an Article in WSJ called “The Perils of ‘Wannabe Cool’ Christianity

Aug 17, 2010

Posted by Pastor Todd Murphy in | Comments (7)

I came across this article in the Wall Street Journal today regarding contemporary Evangelicalism and could not help commenting on it.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704111704575355311122648100.html

In this article, the author who identifies himself as a "27 year old evangelical" presumes to speak for all Evangelicals his age. He has some very relevant critiques of pop evangelicalism. He particularly points out how many are trying to use "shock" tactics as marketing spin, especially using "sex" as a topic of sermons and books to garner the youthful gaze. I have to say that I agree to one level, but on another, I found that he paints with too broad and indiscriminate brush strokes. He seems to take the posture that talking about any cultural hot topic that identifies relevant questions young people are asking is an attempt at gimmicky marketing. One thing he really fails to mention is whether or not people he uses as examples are actually effective, or ineffective. What he implies throughout the article is that evangelical churches are shrinking, and therefore in spite of these tactics, the church is still shrinking and losing touch with the young evangelicals like him. However he actually points to Rob Bell of Mars Hill Church in Michigan and Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church in Seattle (no affiliation). Both are used as examples of using "sex" as marketing spin, but both churches are actually exploding with with not only new converts, but exactly the young people he claims have no use for churches like these, young evangelicals who are losing their faith. Thus his examples actually disprove his rantings.

This also certainly betrays a perspective that could only come from a an impatient young Evangelical who has no real pastoral or missional experience dealing with young “non-Christians" who are are in a very sexually active culture. The Church has been portrayed in recent history as victorian and puritanical (much its own fault) in its refusal to deal with sex and other key issues head on. It has been retreatist and has failed to engage the culture with the questions it is asking. The reality is, since the sexual revolution, "sex" is one of the single most important questions unchurched young people are asking. Sex is now the great big cultural idol of our culture. For the Church to go on doing Gospel witness as if sex was not an issue would be to ignore the pink elephant in the room. But many of these courageous pastors which he denounces have only merely done what Paul did on the Areopagus (Mars Hill, Athens ironically). They have stood up int he culture and pointed first to the idol that culture worshipped and said "I see that you are very religious" and "I passed by an alter to the unknown God." Paul addressed the Athenian cultural idols head on to proclaim the greater riches of Christ.

The author betrays his own presupposed evangelical sexually chaste life orientation which postures him in the same sort of Victorian manner where he does not want to deal with the sex question just because it is not immediately relevant to him. But that does not mean it is not relevant to everyone else. So as much as he tries to sit there sounding more relevant than his trendy evangelical "hipster" brethren, his rhetoric at the end of the article shows his true colors when he writes: "It's because the world we inhabit is utterly phony, ephemeral, narcissistic, image-obsessed and sex-drenched—and we want an alternative." This is not the words of an unchurched young man, but a very churchy young man. This is not the words of a young man who is engaged in reaching the unchurched of his culture, but rather he is sitting in judgement of his culture demanding a church that meets his David Wells inspired form of Neo-Puritainism. I could only chuckle a bit when he states that his generation does not want "cool" but rather to be "real." Is not "real" just the new Y generation's word for "cool"; just the way cool replaced "wicked" and "wicked" replaced "hunky dory?" In the end, the author of this article and his new book entitled "Hipster Christianity: Where Church and Cool Collide" represent the same provincial evangelical frame of thought that betrays the very consumeristic "I want the church my way." The thought in this article strikes me as ideas that develop by reading copiously of insular Reformed Evangelical critique (I am a pastor in the Reformed Church) of the the culture and the pop evangelicalism, but lacks real cultural interaction and reflection of a practitioner of Gospel ministry.

To end with an example, our own church, Sacred Journey (CRC) is a mission to the city of Providence, RI. We are a new church plant that is beginning to reach many of the unchurched and de-churched 20, 30, and 40 somethings of this post Christian culture. Let me assure you, as I enter into Gospel conversations with my generation, I do not have to bring up the subject myself. I have had people sit down with me with bullet lists of questions as they explore the Gospel and the sex question always comes up. They want to know how this fits into a Christian world view, and without a clear and articulate answer, the Church is setting itself up for irrelevance. No we are not made relevant by wearing “skinny jeans” and a hair cut you see on American Idol. We are made relevant by continuing to engage the culture, its idols, and yet never sitting in judgment of it.

You're more influential than you think. Enjoyed this? Pass it on!

Posted by Pastor Todd Murphy in | Comments (7)

Pastor Todd Murphy

08/17 at 07:32 AM

Dude, awesome comments! I would have some harsh critiques of some of the larger church’s which adress sex, but only as a means to “grow” their sunday service. Mars Hill in Seattle uses Sex to bring up the conversation, but actually adresses sex with the gospel.

Some of the larger churches doing this, have failed in my opinion. They got the people in the door, but never let them hear the important message of Jesus. Instead they heard “Accept Jesus, then you will have epic sex 3 times a day.” Then people are cashing the Jesus check hoping it will help out their sex life. In the end, their sex life still sucks, and they have been given a false assurance of something they probably don’t posses.

Here is a video that makes me go…hmph.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkEImFpndGE&feature=player_embedded

Pastor Todd Murphy

08/17 at 08:15 AM

Great thoughts here. It seems that Brett feels as if he has figured out the heart motives behind any and all churches that seem “cool”.

Yes, it is irritating when churches attempt a forced “relevance” out of desperation.
No culture is engaged by a person who is obviously an outsider who is trying to stereotypically fit in by imitating externals. People see through this. It smells like businessy salesmanship.

But for Brett to lump that fakeness with the church addressing any cultural idol or being a part of culture in general is selfish and short-sighted. It tells our culture that the church has nothing worthwhile to offer, so feel free to move on to more interesting ideas of spirituality. And that is just dumb.

Pastor Todd Murphy

08/17 at 12:53 PM

Your post is a good counterbalance to the WSJ article, and brings needed perspective. I feel, though, that you yourself are guilty (to some extent) of the same attitude you criticize. Your comments are written from the standpoint of what you are trying to accomplish in your ministry.

You assert pointedly that the problem with the evangelical subculture is that it is judging the larger culture’s sexuality and thus alienating it. You also point to Paul’s speech at Mars Hill as a model for your mission. But Paul’s message always included a warning to leave behind old behaviors, saying things like, “in the past, God excused such ignorance…” This is a form of judgment—perhaps more subtle than an Evangelical caricature, but still a judgment wrapped in a challenge. And it seems that most hearers at Mars Hill were not terribly receptive to Paul’s message. The point wasn’t market response at all.

You are right, I think, about sexuality as in idol today. Confronting idolatry, as the Bible makes amply clear, is never very safe, no matter what approaches are taken. Today’s sophisticated consumers can spot judgment wrapped in a smile. This is precisely why gays want to marry. They don’t want acceptance, they want approval. Similar attitudes apply across every sexual persuasion. No matter where the conversation begins, judgmentally speaking, it had better eventually come to the Bible’s actual message about sexuality, or there is really no point.

The early Methodists in this country were (by today’s standards) poorly educated, and worked under terrible conditions to spread the message that they did. I submit that it is not sexuality, but old-fashioned materialism, that has infected the church. The evangelicals are following a long line of church bodies that started with fire, got rich, and watched the fire die from the comfort of their homes. Your comments about Brett McCracken’s provincialism are probably close to the mark, but addressing sexuality is not the clearest answer.

Pastor Todd Murphy

08/17 at 01:59 PM

Ed thanks so much for responding to my blog post. I could not agree more with your final statement, “addressing sexuality is not the clearest answer.” As I said in the opening line of my post, I do agree with the author’s submission that many churches are using shock and sexuality as a gimmick, something that has equally bothered me, and to be honest, I cannot say I would ever be comfortable doing a series on sex in our worship service. So to your point of sex being used as a way of “greasing the wheels” with a sexually charged culture, I am in agreement with you.

On the other hand, I have to submit, that it is a dominant cultural idol and therefore it “comes up” all the time. I never use the topic of sex to start discussions with the un-churched and de-churched that come and interact with SJC. But the question is always material to them, especially those sexually active outside of biblical parameters. There is enough vestiges of Christendom for them to know that it matters to the Church and God. So when they ask the question “how can I know and follow Christ,” they seem to intuitively ask “what about following Christ and my sexually active lifestyle,” per se.

To my point with Paul on Mars Hill, I was assuming that when I said address the cultural idols, it would be understood as a call to abandon the idols of sin in the culture and pursue repentance and discipleship. I just felt the author’s article demonstrated a perception of reality seen only through his evangelical upbringing that translated into doing church in a way that only suits his immediate needs/wants which was not wanting to hear about sex. Another form of consumerism rather than Gospel centered ministry. It seemed to lack the broader perspective I have forced on me every day as I interact with un-churched post-moderns who are asking the sex questions as one of their primary theological concerns. Cheers and thanks so much!

Pastor Todd Murphy

08/17 at 02:50 PM

After I better understand you, I think we are in agreement. Thanks for your thoughtful response. I pray that God will continue to use you in your outreach—coming from a conservative theological background myself, I understand the difficulty of transcending the unspoken cultural assumptions that often pervade, and sometimes define, such bodies.

I agree with a number of comments to the WSJ article that fads serve the church poorly. At the same time, there is a tremendous need to create a communication, an ethos, and a polity that will project the eternal love of Christ to a culture that literally does not speak the language. God bless.

Pastor Todd Murphy

08/17 at 07:11 PM

Wow. this guy is 27?
A lot of his rantings sound a lot like some baby boomers I know that got saved in the 70s…
He seems to have drawn some pretty tight conclusions, most of which, don’t resonate with me. They seem overblown and presumptuous. in fact, the odd list he compiled summing up how churches “attempt to be cool” inadvertently paints a self portrait of himself. Let me guess, he DOESN’T have cool hair, wear skinny jeans or promote “R-rated” movies
(i’m sorry but that one made me LOL—the “R-RATED” No country for old men—gasp!!!)

Now i DO think there are churches who have made a mess of evangelistic methods and how they engage (or try to engage) culture. But to sum up the entirety of all churches having this one, singular motive to “be cool” just falls flat with me.
I will agree that there are a handful of churches who are using lame, gimmicky methods to get people through their doors, like pastors who have promised people “money under their seats” and even winning X-boxes and vacations by drawing, if they showed up on Sunday and grabbed a ticket at the door. I get that.
As ridiculous as that is, there is as much a problem with a church trying to be “cool” as there is a church trying to remain “prehistoric” in an attempt to be “holy”. (ok, this was totally for the baby boomer who got saved in the 70s) those churches are the stale and crotchety ones we all avoid. you know, the ones where wearing jeans or flip flops on sunday is sinful…

as far as the whole generation of 20 somethings abandoning church…i think voddie baucham hit the nail on the head. 1. It’s because of cultural indoctrination (worldview/secular humanism) and 2. the lack of discipleship from Christian homes. Meaning, parents. anyway…i feel my mind going in a hundred different directions…back to it…
He seems to have zeal. But zeal has to be balanced with other things, like wisdom, grace, maturity and humility. The last paragraph he wrote makes him seem out of touch with, i don’t know, being human? Next book: Elitist Christianity: where holy and uncool collide.

Pastor Todd Murphy

08/18 at 08:41 PM

Interesting. I guess I’m alone, but I liked it.

Before you post that comment, give it a ponder.

Sacred Journey Church is located in Providence, Rhode Island

Thoughs on an Article in WSJ called “The Perils of ‘Wannabe Cool’ Christianity

Subscribe

Favorite Blogs