# The Perils of 'Wannabe Cool' Christianity



## Michael (Aug 20, 2010)

Really surprised to find this article in the Opinion portion of the Wall Street Journal...good stuff!

The Perils of Hipster Christianity and Why Young Evangelicals Reject Churches That Try To Be Cool - WSJ.com


----------



## Staphlobob (Aug 21, 2010)

"Hipster Christianity." I can only think of "Cosmo Kramer" as a pastor.


----------



## Jeffriesw (Aug 21, 2010)

Good read, Thanks for posting it.

"The born-again, marketing church has calculated that unless it makes deep, serious cultural adaptations, it will go out of business, especially with the younger generations. What it has not considered carefully enough is that it may well be putting itself out of business with God. (from the article)


----------



## raekwon (Aug 21, 2010)

Not impressed. Dr. Daniel Kirk has a couple of good responses on his blog...
Storied Theology » The Perils of Ignorant Critique
Storied Theology » Hip Christianity


----------



## rbcbob (Aug 21, 2010)

raekwon said:


> Not impressed. Dr. Daniel Kirk has a couple of good responses on his blog...
> Storied Theology » The Perils of Ignorant Critique
> Storied Theology » Hip Christianity



While not beyond criticism, I find Mccracken's objections to churches attempts to be _"Cool"_ more helpful than Dr. Kirk's criticism of Mccracken. Better than either of them in my opinion is the assessment of the Church and Culture by Thabiti Anyabwile at the 2010 T4G conference.


----------



## Ivan (Aug 21, 2010)

To attempt to be cool means one is not cool.


----------



## Jack K (Aug 21, 2010)

I read McCracken's article a few days ago and had some of the same criticisms Rev. Kirk points out. McCracken's own views are not where I'd like to see churches go. However, many churches could learn from much of what McCracken says in his article, especially the closing paragraph:



> 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.



That point is so good it easily makes up for many failings.


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 21, 2010)

raekwon said:


> Not impressed. Dr. Daniel Kirk has a couple of good responses on his blog...
> http://www.jrdkirk.com/2010/08/15/the-perils-of-ignorant-critique/]Storied Theology » The Perils of Ignorant Critique[/url]
> http://www.jrdkirk.com/2010/08/16/hip-christianity/]Storied Theology » Hip Christianity[/url]


 I'm not sure I could think of a better endorsement for an article than a "critique" from Daniel Kirk.

Maybe Kirk can also explain why he thinks the PCUSA is worth _*joining*_ when everyone else is leaving, why the Reformation has been wrong about justification, and why it is so important to be not only hip, but a supporter of the Democratic Party's positions on abortion, homosexuality and the like.


----------



## Staphlobob (Aug 21, 2010)

Ivan said:


> To attempt to be cool means one is not cool.



I think the kids nowadays call that a "poser." I recently had a client who, like Peter Sellers, saw himself only as a cipher. He was so intent on being "cool" that he had no identity. 

Cipher. A good definition of "wanna be cool" pastors.


----------



## raekwon (Aug 21, 2010)

fredtgreco said:


> raekwon said:
> 
> 
> > Not impressed. Dr. Daniel Kirk has a couple of good responses on his blog...
> ...



Just taking the words at face value, with no regard for who's actually saying them, Fred -- Kirk's criticisms of McCracken's article give voice to many of the things I was thinking as I read it.

McCracken seems to be incorrectly assuming that any church that appears "hip" (whatever that means) must be "trying to be cool" in order to appeal to whoever they're trying to appeal to. That's certainly true of some churches, but at the same time, there are churches that appear "hip," simply because they reflect the culture, interests, aesthetic, etc of the people. There's a difference.


----------

