While I agree with a lot of this, I get the feeling that lots of people use this as an excuse to bash large churches just because they are large. There is nothing wrong with a church being large.

There is much to be said for small churches and much to be said for large churches. Don't paint with a broad brush.

One aspect of her point of view, that I do think feeds into this, is that she is single.

The view a single person has of many of these types of churches is a lot different than those of us who are married with kids.

Well, at this point, I'm thinking of just taking this post down :-)

The point of the post (and what I probably should have emphasized more) was the "what she is longing for is parish".

Instead, I think I offended every pastor friend I have (except for Phil, who wears a suit every Sunday) :-)

She's speaking the experience of hundreds and hundreds of thousands. And it's no surprise that if there is some edge in her report, that will become a way to fault her. But she's telling the truth that thousands are afraid to speak. God's peace on her.

I think her point was that, in a lot of cases, attempts to bank on the social capital of current trends come off as disingenuous and self-conscious. $4.85 lattes, earpieces and perfectly untucked shirts are part of the everyday vernacular of a facile, self-absorbed, "cool" world; when a pastor starts borrowing from the cool kids, he does it at the risk of his message.

If your self-presentation seems calculated, that makes the Gospel even as it comes out of your mouth sound fake. It's like listening to a bad actor give a stupid monologue about how he's not really an actor and this isn't supposed to be a monologue.

For a lot of people, the church mission to be "real" and "relevant" comes off like that. And when pastors try to look and talk like their age-cohort in the corporate world, it's even worse.

Anything extra - headsets, awkward slang, Gap-inspired fashions, the eco-friendly coffee shop in the foyer, etc. - detracts, as all props do, from the force and realism we're all hoping to find in our spiritual leaders. It insults the believers faith and intelligence at the same time, because no matter what he's saying, the pastor is still trying to be one of us. In the pews we're mostly deuchebags who want to believe in the transformative power of life through ministry; we don't want to see our pastor and have to admit that the ministry has just transformed him into a slightly slicker deuchebag. That's kind of humiliating, but pastors do it all the time.

jared:

I believe that guys like you and me can do something about this situation by writing, preaching, influencing, etc. But I think Julie- who is an artist and a single woman- is just that one voice that cries out. Yes, someone can always say that voice shouldn't cry out, that it's pharisaical, that she should be more constructive. And I agree with your diagnosis of the causes.

But.....

the inability or refusal to hear Julie's voice as it reacts and walks out is a major reason we have these problems. Evangelicalism is male preachers talking to other male leaders. Voices like Julie's- that one person who winces and says no more- are the sounds of evangelicalism failing. We can always reassure ourselves that the noise under the hood is nothing to be concerned about, but I value what Julie says- even with its very rough edges- because she is the ordinary person in the pew, and so very few hear or want to hear that voice.

Thanks for the interaction and for the post. I'm going to be interviewing Julie at IM in a few days.

peace

MS

Another perspective on this, and one that I've hesitated to bring up.

Note: if you, like me, was never, ever "cool" growing up, no matter how hard you tried to be, if you were never in the top or near-top social strata, if you were (let's be frank) a geek, you might get what I'm about to say.

If you weren't (and most of you weren't) you very well might not get this. You can try, but - trust me - you probably won't get it.

OK, here goes:

There comes a point when you learn to just be yourself. You accept who you are and you go with it. Man, that's freeing.

But it also gets exasperating when you see others around you striving, year after year, after "cool". This is one reason that I have a visceral distaste for the word "cheesy" that I used to hear all the time at my church (gloriously, not so much anymore).

"That's cheesy". "Let's not make this too cheesy". "That guy was cheesy".

It's like any value, any spiritual good, any blessing that might have been received was instantly vetoed if there was the slightest element of "cheese" to it.

You know what "cheese" is? It's the opposite of cool. It's the opposite of appearing to have it all together, of being suavely bored with all things, of being "inside" and knowing all the unspoken rules, being in on the joke, etc.

I've gotten to the point where I am drawn to the dork pastor who isn't trying to be something he's not. And I'm repulsed by the pastor who has as a top value "cool", making cool something he and his church image-makers cling to desperately year after year.

I don't know if this is what truly bothered Julie. But in what she wrote, I saw something of a kindred spirit.

Man, I'm sick of cool.

Hope that makes sense.

Now - to caveat this 1,000 times over: If you are a pastor who untucks his shirt, wears flip-flops, and drinks coffee because that's the way you are, that's great. If you're doing it because you saw someone else do it and said "hey, that's cool", then you might want to think about how you're coming across to the Julies of this world.

For what it's worth, I've spoken with a headset before, and my shirt might even have been untucked :-)

I also think you are all taking the "kick his arse" thing a bit too literally. That was a cry of frustration from her. I don't think she means a headset is reason enough to physically assault someone.

Finally, I have to take issue with this: "makes her stand no better than the one who walks out of the small country church because they aren't cool enough. (IMO)"

That's a moral equivalence that I disagree with. Being troubled by the erection of a false sense of "cool" at church (in other words, being troubled by falseness) is not the same as being judgmental of an authentic, small country church. I've got a lot more sympathy for the former stance and very little for the latter.

If I may. I don't claim to speak for Julie (she speaks beautifully for herself), but here is a thought. On this thread, it seems that a large number of men are parsing/discussing a single woman's frustrations with a certain form of big-church evangelicalism, and maybe it'd be useful to have a girl jump into the mix too.

OK, some issues (faux coolness, the overprioritization of "hipness," the fundamental problem about honesty versus a happy-clappy version of Christian subculture, Joel Osteenism, etc.) are applicable to everybody who's frustrated or distressed with the current state of evangelicalism's goofy edges.

Still, as a single woman and a frustrated Christian who has done precisely the same thing that Julie's done, I second many of her points. And another thing? She's also got a point with the single/married divide. Family values are great and all, but there can be a distinct sense that I'm not a real and fulfilled PERSON until I get married and have babies. Single people are people too. Meanwhile I keep getting asked to support missionary families in OogaBoogaLand or wherever.

One last thing: Julie's post (and my comment too, I guess) are honest expressions from real people. We're also not alone. I have ever increasing numbers of friends, good believing people, who are growing frustrated with evangelical church culture. There really is a problem in the heart of the contemporary church, and it can't be explained away, though naturally it's easier to criticize the critic than look at the merits of his/her actual critique.

Anyway, we're all in deep trouble if a fellow Christian gives a heartfelt attempt to express herself, pain and all, and some people's response is to take issue with that honesty and perhaps ascribe bitterness, etc. to it. Frankly, a little honesty, even if it's messy, even if it makes you uncomfortable, is refreshing in this slick little modern church world. Besides, if the church can't handle critiques from some concerned and alienated believers, how is ever going to connect with nonbelievers? A while back, the venerable iMonk wrote a piece on the idea of "why do they hate us?" and I think part of it is relevant here too in relation to alienated believers who leave the church not because they no longer believe, but because -- in one of the great ironies -- the "church thing" has itself become an impediment.

Best wishes,
Mad Minerva

Good conversation all.

Another facet of this (and I know I've brought this up before) - I remember back when I was doing volunteer work for Campus Life, way way back, there was a really unbalanced desire to reach "key kids" - i.e., the kids who were popular/leaders in high school. This desire was expressed by people who were self-sacrificing, Godly and gospel-oriented people. But they knew if they got the "key" kids, then the group would grow.

It bothered me then. It bothers me today. I can't state it any other way than to say this: I thought I was done dealing with "cool" after high school. If we're still measuring people by that standard, then that's dismaying.

I don't even know what cool means anymore. You're right, it's not a given that if someone "looks" cool, then they are posing. There are lots of people out there who are just cool. Jared, for instance :-)

But, though not single, Jill and I work with singles and I recognize this frustration. Churches can become places where there are, still, years away from the jungles of junior high and high school, pockets of "in" and "out". Singles generally feel like they are in the "out" group.

I'm not sure what the answer is, frankly. It's more than just being yourself. It has to do with accepting others as they are as well.

For instance, how many large churches have you been in where every single person on stage, in the praise team or whatever, is attractive? Perhaps that's just how it shook out, but I often wonder if, in the desire to present to the world a church that is relevant, hip, and together, there's a desire to hide that portion of the church body that doesn't fit that (really arbitrary) mold.

For instance, how many large churches have you been in where every single person on stage, in the praise team or whatever, is attractive?

Not at mine, that's for sure. ;-)


I thought I was done dealing with "cool" after high school.

If there's one thing I've learned, it's that high school is never really over.

Very good post; One that I gained a lot from reading.