Bret McCracken just wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal. It talks about the image makeover that evangelical christianity is trying to achieve. He takes potshots at people all over the spectrum, Rob Bell, Mark Driscoll, and several other churches. He advocates his point of view as a "true-er" or more authentic version of following Christ. I agree with his premise, that following Jesus is not trendy, easy, or always popular. I had difficulty with his tone toward other authors, pastors, and Christ followers. He lumped them all together with the assumption that a catchy title or an idea was meant to first and foremost make Evangelical Christianity popular again, or worse yet...more palatable. There are many perils of "wanna be cool" christianity for sure! I'm not so sure that the examples in his article highlight people who are trying to be cool.
Perhaps his book offers a better solution, but his article didn't. He made no attempt to differentiate between contextualizing communication and giving into the culture around us. I have a hard time believing that all the pastors and ministries he mentions in his article are as shallow and narcissistic as he makes them sound. I'll read the book for sure. I just wish his article included a clear alternative for the people he mentioned. Are they supposed to come up with ideas that are offensive and boring? Are they supposed to purposefully create barriers to others hearing about Jesus? Hmmmm...that might be a catchy idea!!! (insert smily face)