Why It’s Not Hip to be Holy
...if it's evangelical 'holy'...
A very rare production was aired on Canadian TV nationally. Global Television aired a documentary called, "Hip 2B Holy," a look at evangelicals in Canada. Of course, evangelicals in Canada are quite pleased with the attention, surely it points to the success of their ways?
Personally I'm a bit disappointed at the attempt to venture into Canadian religiosity. What would have piqued my interest far more would be a documentary on the collapse of evangelicalism (as we blogged about here). This concept would have garnered far more news time and attention (good and bad), and quite frankly is a more accurate picture of the religious climate in Canada. Had this been documentary been done 10 years ago it would have been cutting edge. Since it was released today it's a bit old for people literally on the bleeding edge of 'church'.
Essentially the documentary spent time looking at two primary groups of Ontario evangelicals who moved out of the old church traditions and into more hip and happening expressions. i was drawn to the young urban pastor and less to the presbyter(?) who moved from the old church to the movie theater.
I felt as if I kept on saying throughout in response to the 'new hip' ideas the Alpha groups or churches were done was, "Oh look how many ways evangelicals can attract people to church!"
I get it, you can do what you already but using cooler music and jeans. As one pastor put it, "it's 21st century spin on Christian value", yes, I know.
The same pastor said this about one attendee in that he was, "the exact kind of person we want to attract." Well hooray, but years later he wasn't even somewhat agnostic despite his attendance? Pretty much typical Sunday only church--come in for the popcorn, but get the heck out before the noon movie showing, we'll see you next week--kind of attitude. Not to cast too much judgement here but was somebody interested in investing their lives into the couple?
The portrayal was quite accurate in this sense so thanks Kevin Newman. But the edgy questions were left out--much to my disappointment. Yes evangelicals aren't as involved politically, but they are also stagnating not growing. Being hip is cool but it doesn't make one holy, it barely even gets you more people since our emerging generations are more interested in testing and participation rather than church that looks flashy but sounds more like school.
It seemed as though there was more interest in that the Christian faith could be expressed outside of the steeple building (Alpha isn't cutting edge either BTW) then there was on the actual success of evangelicalism in Canadian culture.
An interesting addition was the voice from Ipsos Reid citing some numbers, albeit they'll be disappointed that evangelicalism won't take over Canada. I firmly believe there is no resurgence coming, in fact, decline. I also don't think they're right with their 10-15% evangelical population. Sociologist Reg Bibby pegged that number at about 8% in 2004 and I trust his numbers more.
So are evangelicals growing? Maybe marginally, they certainly do well to connect young people and have greater loyalty throughout the family, but I certainly wouldn't claim a movement or resurgence is on our hands.
One thing is certain, evangelicals know the world around them is changing but they haven't figured out how. We're bent on creating Irresistible environments because obviously God is only interpreted and present when clergymen are around (that was sarcasm).
For the most part there is an assumption for evangelicals that they are dealing with a Christianized Canada. That is: cool presentation + seeker sensitive attitude (movie theater, flash, videos, to attract while you sit there and take it) = a sensible product to be consumed.
DUDE--this isn't the 80's. Just cause you have electric guitars, video, and a blog doesn't mean a darn thing anymore. It's great to be current, but useless to do what you're supposed to, make disciples. Maybe you'll grow through addition of dechurched people, but fundamentally my sense we need to do less about cool and more about raw and probably already existent personal relationships. Not ones with Christ, but ones with our friends/networks.
Hopefully there is a part 2 on this series that talks about the decline rather than the 'growth'. I'll be happy to contribute as the voice of the actual 'next wave' of evangelicalism (we can start by dropping evangelical 
).
What did you think of the documentary?
ADD: The blogosphere is picking up on it which is cool, even atheists are chiming in.
Adam
27 May, 2009
I have a few thoughts for this article. It is interesting to see how the media try's to report on what they don't understand and how the public will interpret their findings. I give Newman and Global props for at least making it a positive spin on Christians for once. I don't agree with you that we need to see a Documentary on the decline of Evangelicals, that would not help the kingdom but rather cause the little faith we have left to be lost? Everyone knows the church is screwed up, people want to see a story of hope. Now I don't believe the true movement was properly described in the Doc, Evangelical is such a broad term and Alpha is not cutting edge but maybe a good idea. It would of been better to describe the movement as Non denominational or the church outside the church. The truth is some of those churches in the Doc are not really part of the same movement but share some common things. There is the churches that are trying to be more relevant and then there are people that are truly just doing what they feel called to do and fall within that relevancy.
To be more specific the line must be drawn between the new relevant Programs of the old churches and the new movements that are reaching out in relevant means on their own accord. Nathan who was featured in the Doc is a personal friend of mine and I have known him for years. He didn't start his dance troop to be a more relevant part of his youth group but rather started it because he loved Jesus and Dance. The things he does is not for any program of the church but for the overall kingdom of God and His love of Jesus and people. For me, I put on Dj Led worship events which was at the first part of the Doc because I love God and I love Dance music, it is what I do. So I take what I do and I do it for God and make something of it, in the end being relevant. I have done this on my own accord and is not part of any church program.
I see this type of thing happening all over the place, people stepping outside of the church and saying "I don't know what all these churches are doing, but Im just going to do what I feel called to do even if the church doesn't have a container for it"
So the Doc unknowingly reported on 2 separate things. Churches with hip relevant programs and a movement of young people that the church didn't have a container for and stepped out on their own.
So what we have is naturally people being Hip by design not by a new church program. If you examine closer any of these movements you will see relationship is at the core, even on the church side relationships are at the core.
One of the churches that meet in the movie theaters (The Meeting House) I know that small groups during the week where people are disci-pled is the main part of their church not the movie theater morning service.
Now what is needed on both sides is a further strengthening of the Core fundamentals of Christianity, such a s the cross and holiness, discipleship and evangelism to name a few. That is one point I agree with you on is that relevancy is nothing unless we have the goods. It is my intention to build solid community within the body of Christ for those who love Dance music and to evangelize the club scene and have them come to the light of Christ's salvation. I will do my best to have the goods the way God intended. My prayer is all churches and movements may put the goods first and relevancy second and all become non denominational in belief.
Blessings
Adam
Pomo
27 May, 2009
Adam, thanks for your insightful comments. My thoughts below:
A well documented show on the decline of evangelicalism is not about screw ups, but would discuss how a self-centered church movement was forgotten by the times. If we only have hope in the struggle of the evangelical church to recapture its past glory then we have no hope at all.
It is my firm belief the current posture of evangelicalism in North America (particularly in the States) is on the demise because they can't adjust their distinctions to the ever changing world around us.
I believe it was, and they could have gone even deeper into some of the stupidity and backwardsness of evangelicalism had they stepped out of Ontario. Come over to Alberta and see for yourself what the norm is. I'ts not all backwards, but I can guarantee small towns across the country look no different than American bible-belt towns.
Programs = dead = attractional = consumer church.
Movements = virbant = unique = good.
Cool.
They probably knew what they were doing. They could have gone deeper though IMO.
You can only hope, but if an atheist comes to your church for 3 years and leaves an ahteist after three years then someone isn't connecting with him--period.
Small groups are usually the best thing but the most poorly developed in our churches today.
Movements are good, but I'm wary of your 'evangelizing'; you exist for the sake of mission everywhere you exist. You don't need to create a new ministry or outreach or intention outside of your normal routine (assuming you exist for the sake of mission). We can hit a wall of stupid if we treat our networks as nothing more than evangelizing opportunities (which may not be what you were saying).
Thanks again for your c ontributions. Hope you're connected into something vibrant and dangerous for the faith.
Adam
28 May, 2009
Well Im glad we agree on most points, esp with the Americanized Evangelical church. It would be nice to see a Doc on their decline in hopes of something new arises from their ashes but I personally wouldn't put any effort into something like that, I would save my enegry from the past and put it into the future.
"It is my firm belief the current posture of evangelicalism in North America (particularly in the States) is on the demise because they can't adjust their distinctions to the ever changing world around us. "
I can think a a few more reasons than that for their decline....
"Movements are good, but I'm wary of your 'evangelizing'; you exist for the sake of mission everywhere you exist. You don't need to create a new ministry or outreach or intention outside of your normal routine (assuming you exist for the sake of mission). We can hit a wall of stupid if we treat our networks as nothing more than evangelizing opportunities (which may not be what you were saying)."
I just exist for the sake of the Kingdom what ever that may be and I do what I do, which is Rave ministry. There is a proper way to evangelise and a not so proper way, I will seek the proper.
Blessings
Pomo
28 May, 2009
STOP calling it MINISTRY. It's NOT MINISTRY. ministry is something the church has to be put together because they think people are too incompetent to lead things on their own.
YOu exist in the rave scene because I'm assuming that's your language, where your friends are, where you connect. That's what it is, your network. Not MINISTRY. It's not like there's ministry life and regular life... there's just LIFE!
Adam
28 May, 2009
Well Im sorry for stepping on your lingo bug there Pomo, but I think your a little too caught up in this. Blog comments aren't the place to discuss things like this. If I truly believe my life is a ministry then I certainly can call it ministry. I don't care what other people have made the term.
Blessings
Ro
28 May, 2009
I think it was aj oke so relax Adam. Just semantics people.
Pomo
28 May, 2009
It's not just semantics, sometimes it's important to look at words.
Why do you make a distinction of 'ministry'? What is the purpose of that>? TO point out to the people you are 'ministering' that they are some sort of project? It creates an unusual and unnatural distinction between regular networks and friends, and people you hang out with because you have ulterior motives. So no i'm not judging your heart obviously, but challenging your perspective on what it means to live missionally....life is not a ministry, it's a mission...
but then again maybe THAT is just semantics
ugh
Phil
28 May, 2009
Hey folks,
I've read through this post and the comments that followed. I'd like to make some comments too--just beware, I'm not overly impressed with what you're putting out.
First, I'm glad for your passion and zeal, but think you should slow down to edit your work a little--it would help guests like me to take it seriously.
Second, regardless of your language, ideologies, or vision, I want to call you to model Christ's attitude to those "other people" preaching in his name that the disciples wanted to damn--Jesus had a wider lens, I think. You cannot present this gospel of grace gracelessly--even when you're writing in the prophetic genre, which is what I suspect you fall under.
Third, I do wish to read more about what you are "for" rather than what you are against in future posts. Maybe, when the dialogue becomes as damning and negative as this, it's time to move beyond proving and disproving, and to move into building and teaching the good, the beautiful, the generous and gracious. After all, even the harshest of biblical prophets spoke out of love for God and love for their peoples, and with a fervent wish for their healing. The pomo spirit of "Speak truth to power" has got to move towards the more earthy, lived-in spirit of "Use power truthfully"--see Sharon Walsh's "Sweet Dreams in America."
Fourth, I think it would be helpful for you to add a greater depth of knowledge to your passion. The kind of questions you are addressing here have been addressed throughout Church history by brilliant and Godly people--and you may find some benefit in learning the theological language (and wisdom) of the longer conversation. I think you have something important to say, and I think that you will need more informed language in order to say it clearly. Try working through George Lindbeck's "The Nature of Doctrine" together--I think you will find it very much worth the effort. Also, an older work by the catholic theologian (and now Cardinal) Avery Dulles called "Models of the Church" might expand your ecclesial vision and clarify what you are after.
Anyway, I hope it's ok that I dropped by and left a comment. I'm sincerely glad you're working these questions through, but I hope that the ideologies that are surfacing in this ecclesial conversation will not leave too many victims among your sisters and brothers.
Pomo
28 May, 2009
Welcome, dialogue is fine even when you disagree.
This was written in 20 minutes after the show aired, not a manifesto or a work for the academy so grace eh?
There is no damning. I'm shocked that people consider my words negatively, although prophets were always thrown under the bus, although I wouldn't consider myself one. If you'll note above I d on't condemn different ways to evangelize, I would rather challenge perspectives of the envagelical movement which are very much out of touch with the culture that surrounds them.
I've damned someone to hell?! Oh no! My two degrees, one in theology aren't enough?! OH NO! Just beacuse I don't speak 'PHil's' truth doesn't mean my perspective is negative man!
Allow me to offer a post-preface that everything I speak (write) about is in love and respect.
Yes, have touched on all, but more knowledge to be a better rational thinker is not the end answer to all of Christianity's problems. Furthermore, the above post was not an article about theology or ecclesiology. It is dangerous to assume intentions and adding perspective where there isn't any. (For example how evangelicals leveled the work of fiction called 'The Shack' for its poor theology even though it had nothing to do with theology and was a work of, yet again, FICTION.)
I do appreciate your contribution and will look further into these writers, but just because they are your favorite do not make them the sole voice of orthodoxy (which I doubt is what you were perpetuating.)
Victims? If you are a dead church then fine, no harm done. I'm not sweeping through breaking old wine skins, but I am challenging perspectives so that new wine skins emerge that are far more impactful for our Canadian context.
I would also be sincerely glad if you entered into this ecclesial debate you keep mentioning to provide your views. There's enough here you can gather about me, so let's have your view! I'm sure Pomotheo would be happy to put itup.
Phil
29 May, 2009
Sorry to step on your toes. I think blogging is not for me--it's just too easy to throw out irresponsible words. Personally, I find sarcasm repugnant in the context of a thoughtful, caring conversation. It is a dismissive posture, and a shallow, debative tool that just avoids engaging with the other. Serious critique can only come from hospitable engagement.
I wish you God's best as you continue to work these things out,
Phil
Pomo
29 May, 2009
Opinion duly noted. That's quite a judgmental perspective by the way. Furthermore, you have really put far too much credence into this light hearted review
Ro
29 May, 2009
Hey Phil, Luke 7 --> Jesus being sarcastic. Uh oh, now what do you think? Jesus was repugnant?
By the way, stepping on toes is OK through blog comments, even in real life.