I was going to post in response to the article I read in the Wall Street Journal. Read here.
Frankly, I read the article and got pissed. The only way Christianity is ever presented in the media is to be totally against something (anti-hipster) or totally for something (The Emerging Church or “I’m all about the missional church”).
The only way to get attention in the public is to be anti-something and present it in a sensationalist manner.
Well, I went on to order his book “Hipster Christianity” (angrily, of course!) to read and hopefully gain some insight into what he was trying to say.
I learned, however, the book is not all about being anti-hipster Christianity, whatever that means (although I haven’t read it yet, I learned this via reading some solid reviews).
So I repented of my anger, moved on, and then read this article. Read it here.
It is SUCH a good response. The WSJ article (the first one, Hipster Christianity) is off in so many ways, but the second article (by Maurilio Amorim) is a thoughtful, incredible response. It is EXACTLY what I would have wrote.
* A Kingdom divided amongst itself will never stand. There are people out there that just want a soapbox to stand on. Don’t use one to be anti-____ fill in the blank, especially against churches/leaders who are just trying to fulfill the Great Commission and Great Commandment.
* Let’s be REAL careful how we present our ideas to the public. Now non-Christians read his article and think: Ya, Christians do suck. So, way to go Brett McCracken.
* To echo Maurilio, what does he mean by “REAL?” And if you are a hipster Christian (me, by his definition), am I not real?
* Last, he mentions Central Christian and they reach thousands for Christ (yuck, right?) and Mosaic (huge world impact – terrible, right?). No. Both of these churches are phenomenal.
I just came across another great response. Read here. http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2010/08/14/beware-the-over-hyped-stat/
Have a great day!