NOTE: My post was originally about one and a half times its current length. I decided to cut what I felt wasn't essential and what remained follows. With less text and fewer transitions, it doesn't flow as well, but I figured this abridged version would be better suited to the forums.
While I agree with Lloren's posts, I don't believe the article linked in the OP is trying to address faith from a doctrinal perspective, but rather a cultural perspective.
The article is addressing churches that appear to be desperately seeking new members within a certain demographic, often using methods that sound like they were derived from focus group polls rather than spiritual introspection.
I don't believe the author is making the assertion--or even claiming that he has the knowledge or authority to make the assertion--
that those churches are teaching false doctrine in an effort to boost membership numbers.
Man's wisdom says: Put up a Twitter account, make a Facebook page, and insert references to vampires in your sermons to reach a younger audience.
God's wisdom says: Truth is timeless. The pastor's responsibility is to preach the Word and the church's responsibility is to glorify God and serve as living proof of the truth of Scripture within the church, in the surrounding community, and wherever else they are called to go.
I believe the article may be summarized this way: Those things that should be secondary considerations (interests, hobbies, age, gender, socioeconomic status) are being made primary considerations. Instead of the Word shaping outreach, preconceived notions of what people within a certain age range want are shaping the presentation and delivery of the Word. It's not so much the use of new technologies and trends (it would be odd in 2010 for a church not to have a web site), but rather the perceived assumption that cunning use of those strategies are
necessary to draw new members, especially those within a certain age range. The concern is that leadership in some churches feel Scripture is not enough, when it is indeed more than enough.
I can share my theories all day long, but I'll instead share my personal experience: My wife and I visited and joined a church a few years ago where we were one of the only 20-something couples in the church. The church web site used a template and provided the key pieces of information we were seeking (e.g. statement of faith, affiliation, calendar of events, ministry opportunities). When we visited, what convinced us to stay and join was the genuineness of the people and how they took care of each other. The church's public image (church web site, church grounds, worship service bulletins, etc.) was important, but clearly took a backseat to the teaching and proving of the Word--which is how it should be.
While I'm no longer a member of the 20-something demographic, I can relate to the article, especially the following line:
"And the further irony," he adds, "is that the younger generations who are less impressed by whiz-bang technology, who often see through what is slick and glitzy, and who have been on the receiving end of enough marketing to nauseate them, are as likely to walk away from these oh-so-relevant churches as to walk into them."
The topic of how churches build their public image is one of controversy because nearly every component of any church's public image is subjective. One person will feel right at home where another will feel awkwardly out of place.
One risk of "hipster Christianity" is that it fosters a culture that
says everyone is welcome but communicates a different message through its members and leadership. It is a terrible and tragic thing to feel unwelcome in a Christian church.
Yes, we're called to be shrewd and be "all things to all men," but "all men" includes the "uncool," too. Scripture transcends culture; Paul used culture as a
tool to preach the Word.
Culture was a means to an end, not the end itself.
All that being said, it's not up to me to say that "cool" churches are doing it right or wrong in the grand scheme, but I don't take issue with sharing what trends I would like to see develop in the local church. The article posted was an op-ed piece and I've shared my opinion as well.
