You wouldn't believe it...

(Tim, with tongue planted) Nearly every one of my friends is sending me a link to this Wall Street Journal piece announcing the earthshaking news that evangelicals are in love with hip and cool and dude and are trying to make their churches hip and cool and dude, also.

I'm floored. Someone quick call PCA and MNA headquarters so they can get a jump on battening down the hatches.


Timbo, as I've said to you before, "You was Christian when Christian wasn't cool."

And, you're still Christian when "Christian cool" isn't.


Throw a rock in the pigpen and the one that get's hit will "oink."

The end of the article is helpful:

"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."

Endlessly trying to make churches 'hip like the culture' is a hopeless enterprise. The Prophet reminds us what we are to seek:

"Thus says the LORD,
"Stand by the ways and see and ask for the ancient paths,
Where the good way is, and walk in it;
And you will find rest for your souls.
But they said, 'We will not walk in it.' (Jeremiah 6:16)

I liked the article up until its conclusion.

He rightly points out the worldliness of the church in its methodology. However, his explanation of why we want something besides a "phony hip church" is weak.

Because we want something real? Really? Want does that even mean? A very hip church in Cincinnati uses the tag-line a "real church for real people." My rule of thumb is a car salesman that says "I'm going to be honest with you" should never be trusted. I'd apply this to any church or Christian that uses the word "real."

Because Jesus is appealing and his words ring true? Could he have made a more anemic statement?

He grabbed the ball, broke a few tackles, and fumbled a few yards before the endzone.

>>Could he have made a more anemic statement?



Didn't understand Jeff's comment until I read Kirk's articles.

M. Scott: I'll give you the point about marketing "real" but I reserve the right to use the word when I describe Jesus.

Let's not lose the forest for the trees here. The point is that, while the article says something true, it's yesterday's news being received like it's hot-off-the-press-live-action-coverage.


I agree. The word "real" can be rightly applied to Jesus in so many ways. I like the word "missional." I still use it in some contexts. However, red flags automatically go up when I hear it said. It is much the same way with real, organic, simple, equal, and all the other buzzwords that have a very connotative meaning.


Minimum Standard Energy Demand Model?

Multichannel super-exponential deflation method?

Microsoft Super-experimental Dingdilly Module?

My sister's evanescent deliquescent mop?

Meine Schwesters elektronische Dopplerstoppenvonfloppene Maedchenname?

Acronymously minded folks would love to know!

My Sentiments Exactly, Dude Man?

Ah, Bill; I needed a good laugh. Thank you.

But Andy takes the prize for almost getting it: My Sentiments Exactly Dear Michael.

"Multichannel super-exponential deflation method?"

Which, when translated, means "stomping on your pool floatie with both feet while wearing cross country spikes."

Add new comment