Extreme Label Not Helpful

 The following is from Bill O'Reilly. I have gotten into trouble referring to him before. I do so now, only because I think this thought is spot on.

--If you believe traditional marriage should be kept as the exclusive standard, you are not only extreme; you are a homophobe.
--If you believe all Americans should pay less in taxes, you are greedy and an anti-poor extremist.
--If you believe the Second Amendment gives Americans the right to buy and possess guns, you are promoting violence in an extreme way.
--If you believe the government has a duty to combat overseas terrorists without giving them constitutional protections, you are an extreme anti-human rights individual.
--If you believe abortion is the taking of a human life, you are an anti-woman extremist.
--If you support securing the nation's borders and regulating immigration, you are anti-Hispanic.

The list goes on and on.
By labeling someone as extreme, you can dismiss whatever they say. That's the strategy being used against Ryan. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd writes: "Ryan should stop being so lovable. People who intend to hurt other people should wipe the smile off their faces."

Mr. Obama (The Father's Dream)

Austin Hill reports the following:
The President’s disdainful attitude towards privately possessed wealth should surprise absolutely no one- his own father was also a powerful governmental figure who displayed this same kind of indignation.
Barack Hussein Obama Sr., the biological father of our President, was a bureaucrat in the communist government of Kenya back when the nation first declared its independence in the 1960’s. And while Kenya’s government was at that time moving towards pro-Western, free-market economic reforms, Obama staunchly opposed such changes.
Thus, Mr. Obama published an academic paper in 1965, responding to his government colleagues who supported the westernization of Kenya. Entitled “Problems Facing Our Socialism,” Mr. Obama advised Kenya’s then-President Jomo Kenyatta against relying on private investors, private capital, and private property ownership, as a means of improving the country’s dreadful economy. Why was private capital and investment a problem? Because, Mr. Obama reasoned, private investors inevitably seek to earn “dividends” from their investments, and “turning a profit” was the gravest of all immoralities. Instead, Mr. Obama proposed higher taxes on the wealthy, and a redistribution of that money, for the “collective good” of the nation.

“Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income,” Mr. Obama wrote, “so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed.” In the view of Barack Hussein Obama Sr., the right of the individual person to freely work, earn, and invest, meant nothing. All that mattered was the “collective good” of the nation. And if confiscating certain people’s hard-earned money could help benefit “everyone,” then so be it. That wealth would be put to better use, Mr. Obama argued, if it were controlled by the leader of the government.

Lincoln-Douglas Debates, August 21, 1858

Here is a post from Bill Bennet that I found interesting for today.

August 21, 1858, brought the first of the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates in Illinois between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas, both running for the U.S. Senate. There were seven debates in all, the first in the town of Ottawa, and they set the prairies ablaze as people flocked by the thousands to see the tall, lanky Lincoln match wits with the short, squareshouldered, broad-chested Douglas.

The debates centered on the question of whether slavery should be allowed to expand into U.S. territories. Douglas, a famous sitting senator, argued that the people of each territory should decide whether to allow slavery in their land. Lincoln opposed any expansion of slavery, which he regarded as a “moral, social, and political wrong.” In the final debate Lincoln argued:

That is the issue that will continue in this country when these poor tongues of Judge Douglas and myself shall be silent. It is the eternal struggle between two principles. The one is the common right of humanity, and the other the divine right of kings. It is the same spirit that says, “You toil and work and earn bread, and I’ll eat it.” No matter in what shape it comes, whether from the mouth of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his own nation and live by the fruit of their labor, or from one race of men as an apology for enslaving another race, it is the same tyrannical principle.

Newspapers across the country followed the debates, and although Lincoln lost the Senate race to Douglas, his careful arguments helped turn him from a relatively obscure prairie lawyer into a national figure. The Lincoln-Douglas debates were the most important since the ratification of the Constitution. Lincoln showed a mastery of law, philosophy, and history that raised him above not only Douglas but ultimately every other statesman of the age.

Suffering, Buddha, and Some Recent Tragedies

            Most of us wrestle with the human experience of suffering. We may do so in a quite personal way due to our own experiences. We may do so because of what we see other people experience.

            Buddhism will tell the story of Gautama Siddhartha (living in the 500’s BC), a prince surrounded by luxury during the first part of his life. Yet, in his twenties, he decided to explore the world that his father did not allow him to see. As he went in his chariot with one of the workers of his father, he saw a person alongside the road who was ill, then he saw a person bent over from aging, and then he saw a funeral procession. After each incident, he asked his companion whether this was the only person to suffer. Of course, his companion responded that every human being suffers sickness, aging, and death. With this experience, he would be begin a spiritual journey that would end when he “awakened,” the term in India being “Buddha.”

            My point here is not to suggest the Buddhist answer for human suffering, which, while having valuable insights is not sufficient, I think. My point is that we know what Gautama experienced. We have experiences that remind us of the fragility of human life. We have experiences that remind us of how broken human life is.

            I have been thinking of how hesitant we are to accept human brokenness, especially its sinfulness, evil and twistedness. We try to explain it, especially with psychology and sociology. We want to know its reasons. We want to make sense of senseless human behavior. Frankly, that is how the human mind works. It reflects why we keep exploring mysterious things, looking for reasons and explanations. It seems as if when evil raises its ugly head, our response is surprise. I know I am. Yet, anymore, my response is also, “Oh no, not again.” I have seen it often. Many of the people reading this article would have seen it as well.

            Is everything that happens the will of God? My answer is simple. It is never God’s will to harm, hurt, or damage. People oppose what God wants all the time. You and I have done so. Of course, our world has its suffering, but God also has a purpose that neither suffering nor death can define or limit. I think Paul was saying something like this when he wrote in Romans 8:28 that God works in everything for good. He did not say that everything that happens is good. However, God providentially works through everything, including evil and suffering. Karl Barth said it well. To refer to the providential care of God is to say that the world is not in strange hands. Rather, the world, and your life, are in the kind and loving hands of your divine parent.

            You may have already guessed that I am writing in this way because of the terrible shooting in Aurora, CO. I am also thinking of the terrible abuse scandal at Penn State University and its cover-up by their football program and university leadership. I realize many other issues are involved in both incidents, but I am focusing on spiritual matters here. In both cases, we see the way evil works. Evil works through power intimidating others and taking advantage of a situation. As Bishop Michael Coyner (Indiana United Methodist Church) recently put it, this is why evil is cowardly. It will rarely confront strength to strength directly. It will find weakness, and exploit it for its own ends.

            I am sure all our prayers are with the people and families of these two recent events. I am also sure that many people right here face their own battle with the broken human condition. I have the confidence that if you are, God is along your side to help you wage the battle.

General Conference of UMC 2012

            I had the privilege of attending General Conference 2012 of the United Methodist Church. This meeting, which happens only every four years, represents United Methodists from around the globe. It met in Tampa, FL this year. There were around 1000 delegates sitting at a series of round tables. Most of the Indiana delegation was in the same area. I was a “guest,” largely because a member of my local church staff was a lay delegate. I could see how much she read and agonized over decisions they would need to make. I would like to think that I was able to offer some support for other members of the delegation as well.

            On the personal side, I either walked to the Tampa Convention Center, about three miles from my hotel, or rode the bus.

            Other sources can relate the facts of the decisions. You can read one such summary here: http://www.umc.org/site/apps/nlnet/content3.aspx?c=lwL4KnN1LtH&b=8057055&ct=11742349I want to share a little of what I experienced.

            Did I like Tampa? Of course, it is in Florida. I had only one free afternoon, when Bishop Coyner announced guests would not be allowed in the room due to a demonstration. I wondered aloud what I would do. Someone said, “Well, you are in Florida.” I rented a car for the day and went to the beach. When I arrived again the next day, I discovered that the directions had changed, and I could have attended. In any case, it was nice to have some clam strips and a walk on the beach. However, I also discovered that enjoying the beach is a social event. I wanted Suzanne there.

            Had it not been for that, my response would have been something like, “I guess Tampa is OK, but I did not see much. My hotel and the Convention Center.” I say this because I want to say clearly that the delegates and the alternates work. The sessions started at 8 am and they did not sign off until around 9:30 or 10 PM. There were mid-morning and mid-afternoon breaks and two hour lunch and dinner breaks, but it is grueling. The alternates are used in order to give the delegates a well-deserved break. Indiana UM’s can be quite proud of their delegation. They all worked hard. I think that if I ever went as a delegate, I would make sure I had some days before or after to see the territory and relax.

            Worship on Monday night was impressive as an African Bishop David Kekumba Yemba preached.

            I had the privilege of meeting Mark Tooley, the head of IRD. His primary concern is the capture by the politically Left of mainline denominations, including the UMC. Yet, his book, Methodism and Politics in the Twentieth Century, is a quite factual account of the branches of the present United Methodist Church in politics. I found it quite interesting. If you like either the history of the UM Church or politics, I would recommend it.

            I attended the Confessing Movement breakfast once. I passed out literature one morning for them. Most people were gracious. Only one was not. Given all the people I saw, I did not think that was too bad.

As I understood it, guaranteed appointment for pastors is gone, based on "ineffectiveness", but there are protections built in concerning abuse of power by bishops. The effort is to offer some financial incentive and career counseling for pastors who no longer are effective. I stress that I have not read the final document. There was much discussion of how getting rid of lifetime tenure for bishops required a two thirds vote, while this rule that apparently goes back to Wesley could be overturned with a majority vote. However, much discussion by laity was that they must face a work environment that could lead to their unemployment. Removing guaranteed appointment does not go as far as what laity must face in private enterprise. I think one of the difficulties here is that clergy do not have obviously transferable skills to other occupations, unlike most of the skills laity have.

            Quite quickly, I was impressed with the African presence in the room. This made me aware in a quite graphic way of the global nature of this denomination of around 12 million members. Except in one notable case in a debate regarding homosexuality, they offered questions and motions that I thought helpful. I did not always agree with them, of course, but I appreciated their perspective. Maybe what I sensed was freshness and aliveness to their faith that I may find lacking in me and in many other American congregations.

            Adam Hamilton and Mike Slaughter also made their presence known. They did so through their proposal to change the Social Principles of the United Methodist Church regarding homosexuality. Presently, the statement says that while persons of sacred dignity, the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching. They supported a change that would acknowledge that United Methodists differed on this matter. It was defeated with a 53-47 percent spread, I think. Taken on its own, the statement is quite harmless. Yet, for many opponents, it represented just the first step in a process of full inclusion and acceptance of what they believe to be sinful behavior. What I do not know is the heart or intent of Adam Hamilton or Mike Slaughter. Do they simply want the denomination to find a way to move past the issue? Do they want the denomination to adopt a stance similar to that of the Episcopal Church, which would mean complete affirmation? Another proposed change was defeated by a larger margin. There was then debate about divestment from businesses that work with Israel. After its defeat, and as the session closed, a group burst onto the floor of the Conference, something that was illegal, but the bishop had a prayer and dismissed for break. For all I knew at the time, they were upset about rejecting divestment. I learned from others that it concerned the sexuality vote. Reconvening, Bishop Michael Coyner, my own Bishop, presided. The group now met in the center of the floor, sang something I could not understand (I learned it was “What Does the Lord Require?”). They were disruptive enough that Bishop Coyner dismissed the conference to an early lunch and said that no guests would be allowed in the hall. What I could not see was if Adam Hamilton or Mike Slaughter were part of these disruptions. I must say that United Methodists in Indiana should be quite proud of the way Bishop Coyner conducted himself. He was respectful to people who clearly disrespected him. At one point, he noted that they had made their point. Later, he said they were hurting their point. He was quite right on both counts. In contrast, Bishop Ough sided with the group that lost the votes by wearing a rainbow type tie as he presided the next day. In doing so, I think he demonstrated his smallness and pettiness. Although the following video does not show how much the noise disrupted the proceedings, you can view the dignified way Bishop Coyner presided here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOFzvuxZr2A&list=PL8CA4B32B8E69649B&index=26&feature=plpp_video

            I must say that the group agitating for a change in the statement on homosexuality, in general, was irritating. They marched around the floor of the Conference throughout. They wore rainbow stoles. I suppose some would be sympathetic and feel sorry for them in some way. However, for me, their actions suggested moral superiority and arrogance. From where I sat, literally, I saw anger and disgust toward those who disagreed with them. Some of my friends on the conservative side on this matter said they saw their pain and tears. I did not. I hope I was not blind. By barging onto the floor of the general conference, they became bullies. They know the process by which to make changes in this denomination. If they did not get their way this time, they need to work harder next time. Although I know many colleagues who would agree with their stance, I hope they would not agree with the method the group used.  

            Another matter about which I found myself concerned was divestment from Israel. The committee shared a narrow map of the Palestine area, claiming that Israel has illegally occupied and taken land. What I find disturbing about this type of map is the fact that it obscures the real atrocity committed against the Palestinians is not from Israel, but from Arab countries. The Arab nations that surround Israel have the money to start a new life for the Palestinians in Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, but none of these nations do this. The reason, in my opinion, is simple. They need to hate Jews. In addition, the language used on the floor by one delegate was to compare the behavior of Israel to that of Nazi Germany. It reminded me of how far away I am politically from many in my denomination. Fortunately, the motion was defeated. 

            Plan UMC was a motion to make some structural changes in the denomination designed to streamline and make Boards and Agencies more accountable. The impression I had was that many delegates did not want to leave without making a change here. The feeling was that something needed to change at the denominational level. My own thought, for what it is worth, is that since the denomination is asking local churches to make significant changes for the sake of mission, the national church should do the same. The delegates passed a plan that late Friday afternoon the Judicial Council determined was unconstitutional. I am confident that many delegates left feeling as if they had just wasted the time and money of the church. The delegates reduced the budget for the general church by six percent from the previous four years. Board of Church and Society would accept no cuts.

            There are around 12 million United Methodists in the world. Around 7 million are in the USA, but a number in decline. Within the United States, the South Central and Southeast are by far the largest, the North Central and the New England jurisdictions about the same, and the West the smallest. There are around 4 million in Africa, but a number on the increase. Europe and Southeast Asia are small numbers at present, but Asia is growing. What is interesting is that the American church contributes about 99% of the budget for the general church. One can almost hear the rise of opposition to the African church on this basis, as their numbers at General Conference grows. I would urge you to read what Bob Walters posted on http://www.friendlyplanetnews.blogspot.com/2012/05/no-free-ride-for-central-conferences.html. It is an excellent piece. If it can be well placed, I wonder if “we” should not invest more of the money where the growth is. Just a thought. In addition, the United Methodist Church seems to have trouble where secularity is gaining in strength, namely, in America and Europe. The denomination is not alone in this. However, the denomination is growing in areas closer to tribal and colonial roots. These are quite different mission fields. The principles of growth in one area will not easily translate to the other. At this point, I simply highlight the challenge for the denomination.

            Tim McClendon, a District Superintendent from South Carolina and an episcopal nominee, posted what I thought were some interesting reflections: http://wtmcclendon.wordpress.com/2012/05/06/general-conference-2012-observations/

            Ben Boruff, a member of the team that proposed restructure, offers his reflections on General Conference here: http://www.unitedmethodistreporter.com/2012/05/our-stubborn-system-a-reflection-on-gc2012/

            Some people asked me about whether the UMC will divide. My own thought is no. We will keep having this power struggle within the denomination, one pulling toward what they view as progressive theology, and the other pulling toward faithfulness to the Scripture, the traditions of the church, and to the global church. I would argue that a “conciliar” approach is far better, working with the global church and with other denominations on such matters, but I think those days are gone. People want to be “prophetic,” which generally means the most recent progressive, politically Left agenda. I have stated that I think a basis for a friendly divorce is present. The south central, southeast, evangelical churches, Africa, and Asia, could easily form a denomination of around 9 million. The West, New England, progressive churches everywhere, and Europe, could form a denomination of around three million. To do so would require a division of property, just as in a divorce. In any case, such a friendly divorce would be a far better witness for Christ than what I saw around the homosexuality debate.

I am glad I made the time to attend. I enjoyed my interactions with others. My own hope is simple. The general conference delegates made it clear they have an interest in making some significant changes. Maybe the bishops can figure out a way forward to make some needed changes in the direction the delegates wanted. Since they are the head of the respective agencies of the church, they may have the power to do so, if they so desire.

Shane Claiborne at Life Together Conference at St. Luke's

I have a question for Shane Claiborne, who spoke at the Life Together Conference in February 2012 at St. Luke’s United Methodist Church. I attended largely because I have heard of him around the edges of life, so to speak. It was good to see him and hear him in person.

Before I get to the question, however, I want to say that I enjoyed hearing him. He had a few insights that I will take with me. He had his way of critiquing the evangelical church. Thus, he refers to singing Jus as I am, where we come as we are, leave as we were, live as we always have. I can appreciate that. Yet, I suppose such comments would have more integrity with me if he could find something about the theologically liberal or politically Left to criticize. I should also say that some of his comments were just plain insightful. At the collision between church and world, we need imagination. Is it is easy to “hallmark” the story. We can do that with the story of Jesus, of course, but we can also do that with our own lives. He stressed that we need to celebrate aspects of tradition, and confess many other parts. I agree, although I think every year United Methodists are confessing something. Of course, I also would add that most communion services, and maybe every week, congregations confess their sins.

Here is what I question.

You say that Christians are to be different from our culture.  Granted. However, does being different mean being in favor of the destruction of the culture in which you live? Here is my observation. Pacifism was a strategy Jesus used for his particular setting. Had the Jews adopted his path, the wars of the 60’s AD and the destruction of the Temple may not have occurred. Jesus never had to head a government (hence, the title of your book Jesus for President is just silly, but I will let that pass. I am mindful that the New Testament recognized the authority of political leaders and the authority of Christ.) Pacifism as your one absolute in this world (except hating traditional Christian values and apparently Western Civilization) is a way to destroy the nation that adopts it. I would point out that Paul in his lists of virtues and vices, his account of household rules, and his statements regarding the role of government (Romans 13, along with statements by Peter about praying for the emperor) utilize the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle. Paul suggests that Christians are not to favor the downfall of a culture, but to be light and salt within it, using what is good in the culture as a bond with it. If we allow the difference to define the relationship, we can hardly be salt and light in it. From a political standpoint, I hope you choose to be different enough not to vote.

Having gotten that off my chest, let me say that I respect you. You are living what you preach. I confess being tired of preachers and bishops who live off the wealthy through their giving on the one hand and condemn them as greedy oppressors on the other. You are at least seeking to live out the difference you think followers of Christ should exhibit in personal life and in their life together. I think the church is broad enough to include those who want to live and believe the way you do. I can respect that.

You do write, and I assume drive and fly in planes as you go to conferences. You partake of the culture of capitalism and the fruits of Western Civilization, while at the same time, as noted above, encouraging its destruction. You cannot avoid the hypocrisy completely. Yet, you are seeking to do what you can to highlight a difference you think is important. Again, I appreciate that.

Shane Claiborne is, in many ways, a throwback to the Jesus People days, especially the "Christian Commune" types. He is yet another version of the Anabaptist view of the relationship between church and culture making its way into Mainline Protestant denominations. I do not agree. He is also politically Left and pacifist. He seems to weave all of this into someone who views himself as a radical disciple of Jesus. I am sure he thinks so. By the third talk, I suspected that he thought not anyone who disagreed with his position was as radical of a disciple as he was. He certainly seems to think he has come up with something new. I do not think so. In addition, what he has come up, while I respect it, is not a path I choose to follow. This world is far too messy to adopt any utopian position, and particularly that of pacifism. 

Reflection on Hipster Christianity by Brett McCracken

Reading Hipster Christianity (2010) by Brett McCracken has been a far more personal journey than I anticipated.

He opens with a history of hip and cool. Since I like history, it was a good way to begin for me. He went back to Rousseau and Beau Brummel, but the real beginning was America and its individualism. Yes, Marx and the Frankfurt School come into the discussion. Although I like some of the insights of Rousseau, his philosophy led directly to the mob violence exhibited in the French Revolution. Although Karl Marx had some interesting philosophical insights, his philosophy led directly to the communist tyranny and violence of the 1900’s. Philosophically, I have had to go another direction, which includes appreciation for Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Leibniz, Malebranch, Locke, Hume, Kant, Federalist Papers, and Hegel. Both groups are “revolutionary,” but only one has expanded human freedom and sought to develop institutions and a culture that respects that freedom. Of course, the 1960’s would be the primary origin of hip/cool, with Bob Dylan, Alan Ginsberg, Jack Kerouac, and William S. Burroughs. I remember reading another book he mentions, Theodore Roszak, Making of a Counter Culture. The Beatles, the Stones, Woodstock, The Graduate, and Easy Rider were all part of it. Yet, what happens when hip and cool become mainstream?

            I note that McCracken does not mention Nietzsche. In my recent experience, people who travel this road usually like reading Nietzsche. He seems to express the sense of individuality and loneliness that many hipsters value.

            For hip Christianity, the origin is the Jesus People. He refers to Lonnie Frisbee, Chuck Smith, and Calvary Chapel, all of which I, apparently, missed. On the other hand, I have had some contact with the Vineyard movement, which is part of this stream of contemporary church life. The people in this movement tended to see Jesus as someone like himself or herself, that is, a hippie and a rebel.

            The journey with this book became personal when he explored the Christian rock music of the 60’s and 70’s. Of course, Godspell and Jesus Christ Superstar were both musicals to which I listened and watched often. Among my favorite bands were Chuck Girard, Love Song, Randy Matthews, and Larry Norman. I am glad for the exposure to Sufjan Stevens, an icon in the Christian hip music, but someone of whom I have never heard. Hillsong and David Crowder are big in some of these churches, but they can go many directions, including new versions of hymns.

            The book continues through some modern efforts at hip. Relevant magazine is part of it. They do not like Dobson, Falwell, Robertson, TBN, or Osteen. I probably dislike less than hipsters do, simply because I see some value in their advice on family, for example, and because it is probably my nature to find some good in what other Christians do and believe. They do like Hauerwas, N. T. Wright, Ron Sider, Jim Wallis, The Imitation of Christ, Flannery O’Connor, Wendell Berry, Thomas Merton, Yoder, Brugemann, Brendan Manning, Eugene Peterson, C. S. Lewis, G. K. Chesterton, Henri Nouwen, Soren Kierkegaard, de Chardin, Paul Tillich, Catholic tradition, and Orthodox tradition.

            Although I do not personally have a positive reaction to all of this, I am acquainted with it all, and like much of it. In my twenties and thirties, I struggled with my own spiritual experience, with Christian theology, with my intellectual journey, with my politics, and with my experience of Christian community. It reminds me of some adults, who were being overly protective, I think, warning of the dangers of rock music. Some tried to prove that the beat itself was evil. It also reminds me of other adults who were quite willing to work with us, disciple us. They helped us think through our faith, as well as feel it. They helped us with what it meant for how we lived our lives now, and not just happy that we were saved and going to heaven.

Merton and Nouwen both helped me to pray by broadening and deepening my experience – meditation, listening, silence, and solitude becoming important to me.

The music helped to connect me to faith, for rock music was the music of my youth. Although I have since broadened to include many other forms, it is still the music of my soul.

I have rejected the Leftist politics of Hauerwas, Sider, and Wallis. It focuses on Jesus of Nazareth and his non-violence, simplicity of lifestyle, peacemaking, love of creation, and a radical social critique of money and power. This book has helped me understand why I have rejected it. Its view of Jesus opens itself to the criticism of Jews and Muslims that the historical Jesus is nothing more than an idol, making absolute what was said in an historically contingent situation. It also opens itself to the criticism that it levels against the Christian right, namely, that it claimed Jesus endorsed its politics. The political Left now has its version of the same mistake. Ultimately, this brand of politics is one rooted in alienation and rebellion, as if alienation and rebellion have the final word in the relationship between church and culture. I have come to understand the relationship differently, with the help of George Will, William F. Buckley, Milton Friedman, who were all part of that journey. The journey eventually included the Federalist Papers, the Constitution, John Lock, and Adam Smith. The critique of people like Bishop Willimon is that these people were largely not Christian. They were Enlightenment people, and therefore rationalists. Granting some of this critique, this country has its foundation in a revolution oriented to the individual and freedom, both values of the hipster. Of course, the United States has plenty of sins, past and present. The assumption seems to be that these cultures were somehow “better” than western civilization. To offer an extreme example, when the Spaniards entered Latin America in the 1400’s, the Aztecs were involved in human sacrifice on a massive scale, preferring to capture enemies than kill them so that they could make such sacrifices to their gods. It was brutal, cutting open the chest in order to take out the still beating heart. This behavior repelled the Europeans. It ought not to surprise us that western civilization imperfectly applied its ideals. Human beings still ran its institutions. Yet, its core principle is that of respect for individuals and therefore freedom. What makes one American is not so much the geography as an idea, and that idea involves liberty. As a contrast to Willimon, theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg has said that Western Civilization is not so evil that the church cannot enter into dialogue with it and make it a better culture in which to live. Yes, that means individualism, capitalism, and limited government all have redeeming qualities with which the church can work. What this says to me is that church and culture are not “counter” to each other; they do not exist in alienation, but in a reconciling relationship. Notice, in writing “reconciling,” the point is that the reconciliation is on-going, not complete now, and therefore a tension exists. For these reasons, I cannot go the direction of Rob Bell and Shane Claiborne, contemporary hipsters.

Theologically, I find myself entering into respectful dialogue with Roman Catholic and Orthodox tradition. This also leads to awareness of the global church. Pannenberg has helped me with that, although Nouwen and Merton prepared me for this. I connect with Kierkegaard at personal levels, but I also find myself saddened. He led a lonely life, that of the isolated individual. He ended his life alienated from his country and his church, as evidenced by his Attack Upon Christendom. He ended his life in rebellion. I like de Chardin and Paul Tillich, largely because both enter into dialogue with culture at the level of science, psychology, sociology, and philosophy. Undoubtedly, this is where I differ the most with hip culture. I do not want to lead my Christian life in alienation from the nation in which I live.

Among the television shows he mentions, Lost and Mad Men are shows I liked, but 30 Rock, I did not. I do not watch The Daily Show or The Colbert Report. I have not watched past the first season of The Office. I hear about shows like Sons of Anarchy, Jersey Shore, Breaking Bad, and Project Runway, but have not watched them yet.

He refers to some churches that attract Christian hipsters. Mars Hill church in Seattle, Grace Church Hackney in London, Mosaic in Los Angeles, Life on the Vine in Long Grove, IL, Mars Hill Bible Church in Grandville, MI, Jacob’s Well in Kansas City, MO, Resurrection Presbyterian in Brooklyn. These churches are media savvy, fashionably designed, and friendly to art and culture. They are interested in justice and serving, and not just saving, those outside the walls of the church. I will spending some time reading more about these churches and pastors.

In the end, McCracken thinks that Christianity cannot be hip, because it cannot be as wedded to individualism, alienation, sense of superiority over those uncool, too focused on now, rebellion, and focus on the visual.

I suppose I am not hip or cool. However, I like the appreciation of the arts that hipsters bring to the table. “Life is good,” he says, and too many Christians, I think, give the impression that it is not. We should be able to appreciate nature and culture, I think. Much of the preaching in the churches he mentions involve technology, and I do that when I can, which is often, but not every Sunday. It can be dialogue as well, and I do not do this as much as I could. I recently gave a sermon that featured Mahalia Jackson, I have preached on the Song of Solomon, I like using visual images in messages, I like jazz, and I like Sufjan Stevens.

Maybe part of the point is that you not try to be cool or hip, but that you be yourself. After all, you have a gift to give. If you do not offer it, you will deny to the world the gift you are and have. In realizing that, maybe you are hip or cool, in your own unique way. If you have to try to be hip, you have already lost. Maybe that is the point.

Another point is to listen spiritually and intuitively. Young Christians who become involved in this movement do not need simple affirmation, but they do not need simple rejection either. There are valid concerns they have about Christianity and about this country to which those of us who are now adult need to listen. My own hope would be that they will recognize that rebellion and alienation from Christian history and from America need not be final. Christianity and America are both self-reforming enough to shape a new future. However, if you remain at the point of alienation and rebellion, you will not be part of that new future.