在核輻射近距離直接威脅下的日本民眾雖然憂心忡忡，雖然被深重的危機弄得心緒不靈，雖然久久看不到希望的曙光，但他們仍然保持冷靜沉着，沒有恐慌，沒有自亂陣腳，沒有被謠言煽動，沒有出現人潮搶購那些無任何科學根據的抗輻射物資。
在距離核電廠過千公里的中國各大城市包括香港、澳門，在遠離輻射塵直接威脅的中國城市，民眾包括香港一些市民卻陣腳大亂，自行製造危機。從昨天大清早開始，大批民眾就湧到超級市場、雜貨店、街市掃貨，把貨架上的所有食鹽買清光，後來的向隅者紛紛鼓譟投訴存貨太少，要求超市補貨。一時間，各大城市都出現長長的買鹽人龍，大家都惴惴不安，人心惶惶，彷彿出了甚麼大危機。不明就裡的人甚至可能以為發生核事故的不是日本，而是中國，而是中國的核電廠！
那中國各地民眾包括部份香港市民為甚麼會突然搶購食鹽呢？據說主要有幾個原因。第一個是有傳言說鹽含有碘之類的物質，吃進身體可以抗輻射；第二是說鹽的生產可能受輻射污染，需要早作儲備；第三是其他人都在搶購，不想執輸便跟其他人一起排隊搶購。
在重大天災人禍期間，在情況及前景不明朗的時候，人心虛怯是免不了的事，各種各樣的假消息、假資料四處流散也不奇怪，特別是在網絡、 facebook、手機年代，一條沒有證據、根據的流言很容易在瞬間傳遍不同地方，引發不理性的反應。只是，食鹽可以抗輻射的說法不但沒有任何科學根據，跟一般常識、常理也不相符。單單因為這樣無稽的說法就引來多個大城市民眾恐慌搶購，這充份反映中國民眾包括部份香港市民連基本的科學常識也欠奉，連基本的防災知識意識也缺乏，容易變成驚弓之鳥，被不法商人、居心叵測的人利用魚肉！若果這樣的素質不改善，真正有災難臨頭時不管中國或香港都很容易自亂陣腳，令災情進一步惡化。
當然，防災知識、意識不足不僅僅是市民個人的問題，也跟社會條件、政府政策不足有關。以內地為例，資訊長期受政府嚴格控制，民眾往往無法從正式渠道了解事件的真相，必須依賴非正式途徑或小道消息補充。久而久之，民眾便容易聽信流言，出現非理性反應。
另一方面，防災抗災知識並不是與生俱來的，必須透過教育、訓練、演習逐步培養。日本民眾在地震、海嘯中的冷靜沉着表現就是月復月、年復年的教育、演習成果。他們清楚知道事故前該作甚麼準備，事故中該如何對應，事故後該如何逃生。中國、香港民眾卻欠缺這方面的教育及訓練，出現事故包括核威脅時自然手忙腳亂。
自八十年代末興建大亞灣核電廠後，核電及核事故已成了近在眼前的事，已成了必須認真面對的事。可惜歷年來電廠、港英政府及特區政府只是不斷強調核電廠非常安全，不大願意討論風險問題，也沒有大力宣傳應對核事故的方法，更不要說組織緊急應變演習活動。在這樣的情況下，市民對核安全知識的了解相當零碎有限，如何應對災難更是茫無頭緒。結果當有威脅臨近時，市民便容易失去方寸，進退失據，甚至被無根據的流言騙倒。
我們認為，今次日本核輻射危機雖然未必直接影響香港，但由於內地特別是廣東省大力發展核電，核安全問題將會是個長期問題，揮之不去。要避免昨天那種自亂陣腳、「自己嚇自己」的情況，最根本的做法是培養抗災知識及意識，包括加強核事故應對方法的宣傳教育，讓市民明白甚麼該做甚麼不該做，讓市民有能力判斷消息的可信性，從而提升市民、社會對謠言的免疫力。
Thursday, March 17, 2011
基督日報(香港) - 陳世協院長：教會的興衰決定於領袖優劣
基督日報(香港) - 陳世協院長：教會的興衰決定於領袖優劣
新加坡神學院陳世協院長上周末在紐約中宣會領袖訓練營中分享如何塑造「領袖的品格和條件」。陳院長表示這是非常重要的一個課題，因為領袖的優劣可決定教會的興衰，真正屬神而又委身、聖潔和有領導力的領袖能帶動教會的復興。
遠景清晰
陳院長用四個方面來探討領袖的品格和條件。其中，擁有清晰的遠景（異象）是作為稱職的領袖最重要的品格和條件。他根據箴言書29章18節（沒有異象，民就放肆）總結說，「倘若教會領袖沒有從神而來的異象和使命，整個教會將迷失方向、不知何去何從。」
從微觀來看，教會各部門的領袖也要對自己所負責的工作懷有夢想。陳院長說，所有事工都是從夢想開始的，夢想是推動事工不斷向前發展的動力；倘若領袖沒有夢想，那麽由他所負責的事工就不會有發展。
因此，他建議每位領袖先檢討對於神托付自己的工作是否懷有夢想。倘若發覺自己還沒有夢想，或者夢想並不清晰，就要禱告直到神賜下清晰的夢想為止。
敢於領導
合神心意的領袖應具備的第二個品格和條件就是要敢於領導。陳院長表示「勇氣」是領袖不可缺少的品格，因為好的領袖不會安於現狀，而是尋求突破、改變的，然而在改變過程中一定會出現質疑和抗拒的聲音，領袖若缺乏迎接挑戰的勇氣則無法擔當領導重任。
但陳院長也同時澄清，這裏所說的勇氣並非魯莽蠻幹、一意孤行，領袖也要帶著謙卑的心去聆聽不同的聲音，「待大家誠懇的交換意見、且同心禱告後，若仍有不同的聲音出現，這時候領袖就要頂住壓力當機立斷，帶著甘願承擔一切後果的心誌做出最後的決定。」
他特別提醒領袖都按照神的心意來做每一項決定，「我們所作出的決定不是基於合人的心意，而是要順服神的心意。因此領袖萬不可為了何討好人而不視神的指引。」
講到做到
第三，作領袖的要說到做到，說到做到的領袖才能樹立威信、令人折服。
自我領導
陳院長還提出領袖要學會自我領導。首先領袖要不斷提升靈命，使自己「言行一致」，給跟隨著留下美好的榜樣和見證。其次，領袖在事奉中難免會遭遇挫折、感到疲憊，因此好的領袖要懂得如何管理自我情緒，使自己恢復元氣、時刻保持旺盛的鬥誌。
再次，一個合神心意的領袖要有寬闊的胸懷，敢於收納比自己優秀的同工。他表示，這些有恩賜、又有同樣夢想的新同工是教會的未來，迎接他們將促使自己的夢想早日成真。
陳院長最後總結說，做領袖是一輩子的工作，盼望所有領袖不要失去學習的心誌，在事奉中不斷挑戰自我、完善自我。
新加坡神學院陳世協院長上周末在紐約中宣會領袖訓練營中分享如何塑造「領袖的品格和條件」。陳院長表示這是非常重要的一個課題，因為領袖的優劣可決定教會的興衰，真正屬神而又委身、聖潔和有領導力的領袖能帶動教會的復興。
遠景清晰
陳院長用四個方面來探討領袖的品格和條件。其中，擁有清晰的遠景（異象）是作為稱職的領袖最重要的品格和條件。他根據箴言書29章18節（沒有異象，民就放肆）總結說，「倘若教會領袖沒有從神而來的異象和使命，整個教會將迷失方向、不知何去何從。」
從微觀來看，教會各部門的領袖也要對自己所負責的工作懷有夢想。陳院長說，所有事工都是從夢想開始的，夢想是推動事工不斷向前發展的動力；倘若領袖沒有夢想，那麽由他所負責的事工就不會有發展。
因此，他建議每位領袖先檢討對於神托付自己的工作是否懷有夢想。倘若發覺自己還沒有夢想，或者夢想並不清晰，就要禱告直到神賜下清晰的夢想為止。
敢於領導
合神心意的領袖應具備的第二個品格和條件就是要敢於領導。陳院長表示「勇氣」是領袖不可缺少的品格，因為好的領袖不會安於現狀，而是尋求突破、改變的，然而在改變過程中一定會出現質疑和抗拒的聲音，領袖若缺乏迎接挑戰的勇氣則無法擔當領導重任。
但陳院長也同時澄清，這裏所說的勇氣並非魯莽蠻幹、一意孤行，領袖也要帶著謙卑的心去聆聽不同的聲音，「待大家誠懇的交換意見、且同心禱告後，若仍有不同的聲音出現，這時候領袖就要頂住壓力當機立斷，帶著甘願承擔一切後果的心誌做出最後的決定。」
他特別提醒領袖都按照神的心意來做每一項決定，「我們所作出的決定不是基於合人的心意，而是要順服神的心意。因此領袖萬不可為了何討好人而不視神的指引。」
講到做到
第三，作領袖的要說到做到，說到做到的領袖才能樹立威信、令人折服。
自我領導
陳院長還提出領袖要學會自我領導。首先領袖要不斷提升靈命，使自己「言行一致」，給跟隨著留下美好的榜樣和見證。其次，領袖在事奉中難免會遭遇挫折、感到疲憊，因此好的領袖要懂得如何管理自我情緒，使自己恢復元氣、時刻保持旺盛的鬥誌。
再次，一個合神心意的領袖要有寬闊的胸懷，敢於收納比自己優秀的同工。他表示，這些有恩賜、又有同樣夢想的新同工是教會的未來，迎接他們將促使自己的夢想早日成真。
陳院長最後總結說，做領袖是一輩子的工作，盼望所有領袖不要失去學習的心誌，在事奉中不斷挑戰自我、完善自我。
Wednesday, March 09, 2011
「議員不要政治考慮」...?
"負責提交臨時撥款決議案的陳家強會後「黑面」指摘說：「立法會通過臨時撥款，是立法會應該做和有責任做的事情。我呼籲個別議員不要因為政治的考慮罔顧市民利益。」"
簡直是一派胡言,究竟香港D高官明唔明白佢自己做緊甚麼?D議員係市民用公民權投票要佢地用政治的考慮去帶領這個社會，你竟然公開叫佢地"不要因為政治的考慮"而作出決定?你知唔知到底政治是甚麼...!!
根據百度百科...政治的詞源 (http://baike.baidu.com/view/5073.htm)
政治的詞源
不少西方語言中的「政治」一詞(法語politique、德語Politik、英語politics),都來自希臘語πολις,這個詞可以考證出的最早文字記載是在《荷馬史詩》中,最初的含義是城堡或衛城。古希臘的雅典人將修建在山頂的衛城稱為“阿克羅波里”,簡稱為“波里”,城邦制形成後,“波里”就成為了具有政治意義的城邦的代名詞,後同土地、人民及其政治生活結合在一起而被賦予“邦”或“國”的意義。後又衍生出政治、政治制度、政治家等詞。
因此,“政治”一詞一開始就是指城邦中的城邦公民參與統治、管理、參與、鬥爭等各種公共生活行為的總和。
中國先秦諸子也使用過“政治”一詞,。《尚書•畢命》有“道洽政治,澤潤生民”;《周禮•地官•遂人》有“掌其政治禁令”。但在更多的情況下是將“政”與“治”分開使用。“政”主要指國家的權力、制度、秩序和法令;“治”則主要指管理人民和教化人民,也指實現安定的狀態等。
在中國古代,“政”一般表示: 朝代的制度和秩序,例如“大亂宋國之政” 一種統治和施政的手段,如“禮樂刑政,其極一也” 符合禮儀的道德和修養,如“政者正也,子帥以政,孰敢不正” 朝廷中君主和大臣們的政務活動,如“其在政府,與韓琦同心輔政” “治”在中國古代則一般表示 安定祥和的社會狀態,如“天下交相愛則治” 統治、治國等治理活動,例如“修身、齊家、治國、平天下” 中國古代的這些“政治”的含義,與西方和古希臘的“政治”含義完全不同,很大程度上政治只是一種君主和大臣們維護統治、治理國家的活動。
中文裡現代的“政治”一詞,來自于日本人翻譯西方語言時用漢字創造的相同的“政治”一詞。當英文的Politics從日本傳入中國時,人們在漢語中找不到與之相對應的詞。孫中山認為應該使用“政治”來對譯,認為“政就是眾人之事,治就是管理,管理眾人之事,就是政治。”他的這一說法在當時的中國非常具有影響力。
"政就是眾人之事,治就是管理,管理眾人之事,就是政治。"議員不以因為政治的考慮為出發點,可以用甚麼?
另外，"立法會通過臨時撥款，是立法會應該做和有責任做的事情。"通過"者,有被認同的需要，亦等於有不被認同的可能。若是不能被人所接納，"不通過"也"是立法會應該做和有責任做的事情"。
我並非在此認同或是不認同今次的行為，只是慨嘆香港比D連何謂"政治"都不通的"高官"話事,唉...!
簡直是一派胡言,究竟香港D高官明唔明白佢自己做緊甚麼?D議員係市民用公民權投票要佢地用政治的考慮去帶領這個社會，你竟然公開叫佢地"不要因為政治的考慮"而作出決定?你知唔知到底政治是甚麼...!!
根據百度百科...政治的詞源 (http://baike.baidu.com/view/5073.htm)
政治的詞源
不少西方語言中的「政治」一詞(法語politique、德語Politik、英語politics),都來自希臘語πολις,這個詞可以考證出的最早文字記載是在《荷馬史詩》中,最初的含義是城堡或衛城。古希臘的雅典人將修建在山頂的衛城稱為“阿克羅波里”,簡稱為“波里”,城邦制形成後,“波里”就成為了具有政治意義的城邦的代名詞,後同土地、人民及其政治生活結合在一起而被賦予“邦”或“國”的意義。後又衍生出政治、政治制度、政治家等詞。
因此,“政治”一詞一開始就是指城邦中的城邦公民參與統治、管理、參與、鬥爭等各種公共生活行為的總和。
中國先秦諸子也使用過“政治”一詞,。《尚書•畢命》有“道洽政治,澤潤生民”;《周禮•地官•遂人》有“掌其政治禁令”。但在更多的情況下是將“政”與“治”分開使用。“政”主要指國家的權力、制度、秩序和法令;“治”則主要指管理人民和教化人民,也指實現安定的狀態等。
在中國古代,“政”一般表示: 朝代的制度和秩序,例如“大亂宋國之政” 一種統治和施政的手段,如“禮樂刑政,其極一也” 符合禮儀的道德和修養,如“政者正也,子帥以政,孰敢不正” 朝廷中君主和大臣們的政務活動,如“其在政府,與韓琦同心輔政” “治”在中國古代則一般表示 安定祥和的社會狀態,如“天下交相愛則治” 統治、治國等治理活動,例如“修身、齊家、治國、平天下” 中國古代的這些“政治”的含義,與西方和古希臘的“政治”含義完全不同,很大程度上政治只是一種君主和大臣們維護統治、治理國家的活動。
中文裡現代的“政治”一詞,來自于日本人翻譯西方語言時用漢字創造的相同的“政治”一詞。當英文的Politics從日本傳入中國時,人們在漢語中找不到與之相對應的詞。孫中山認為應該使用“政治”來對譯,認為“政就是眾人之事,治就是管理,管理眾人之事,就是政治。”他的這一說法在當時的中國非常具有影響力。
"政就是眾人之事,治就是管理,管理眾人之事,就是政治。"議員不以因為政治的考慮為出發點,可以用甚麼?
另外，"立法會通過臨時撥款，是立法會應該做和有責任做的事情。"通過"者,有被認同的需要，亦等於有不被認同的可能。若是不能被人所接納，"不通過"也"是立法會應該做和有責任做的事情"。
我並非在此認同或是不認同今次的行為，只是慨嘆香港比D連何謂"政治"都不通的"高官"話事,唉...!
Tuesday, March 08, 2011
揭開帕子之後
(11.03.09 靈修勵語)
路加福音記載了撒迦利亞在祭壇上上香的事，主的天使在祭壇的右邊出現了，然後說出了從神來的預言。這一位祭司，知道了這莫大的歡喜快樂之事，他的反應是甚麼？他不信！
撒迦利亞的反應是難以明白的，他是祭司，當下他在聖殿事奉，屬神的人在屬神的殿聽見屬神的話本應該驚喜！而且他是清清楚楚看見了的天使加百列顯現，說出了他期待以久的說話──神要賜他一個兒子，約翰！然而，這樣一個在神前蒙恩的人，他卻竟然不相信親眼看見的真事！
人類的天性就是對陌生的事物抱存疑懼，為了叫自己能夠保持現狀，千方百計不惜壓抑、欺騙、隱瞞，甚至訴之暴力，也要避免陌生的事情發生在自己身上。於是，我們為了保持生命的現有境況，就連賜人生命的主也排斥了。
我們鼓勵人憑著信心經歷神，我們相信靈修親近神就充滿著神蹟奇事，因為有耶穌在心裡就是神蹟。信徒可以敞開臉看見主的榮光，按照聖經所說：「這帕子在基督裡已經廢去了」（林後三：14）主的靈親自揭開蒙在心中的帕子，釋放了你，讓你得以自由，從此你就與主同行了。
所以根本上，屬神的人經歷屬神的事是理所當然的！
然而，我們的真相就是害怕，而且我們也害怕揭示真相。揭開帕子之後，你要在主面前敞開生命了，你真真正正的貼近這位主耶穌。我們要與這位陌生的主開始最深入生命的關係。你的生命有了愛你的主，但祂也等候你愛主更深。你的罪被抖了出來，也被主清洗乾淨。你的人際關係被主的愛觸摸了，但也表示了你要復和、寬恕和關懷你身邊的人。你的困難有了出路，但這出路也表示了你要面對困難。
經歷神的人就是不斷向真相開放自己，做一個勇敢向前邁進的人。你願意對自己的生命和信仰認真，勇敢地揭開帕子，與神相遇嗎？
路加福音記載了撒迦利亞在祭壇上上香的事，主的天使在祭壇的右邊出現了，然後說出了從神來的預言。這一位祭司，知道了這莫大的歡喜快樂之事，他的反應是甚麼？他不信！
撒迦利亞的反應是難以明白的，他是祭司，當下他在聖殿事奉，屬神的人在屬神的殿聽見屬神的話本應該驚喜！而且他是清清楚楚看見了的天使加百列顯現，說出了他期待以久的說話──神要賜他一個兒子，約翰！然而，這樣一個在神前蒙恩的人，他卻竟然不相信親眼看見的真事！
人類的天性就是對陌生的事物抱存疑懼，為了叫自己能夠保持現狀，千方百計不惜壓抑、欺騙、隱瞞，甚至訴之暴力，也要避免陌生的事情發生在自己身上。於是，我們為了保持生命的現有境況，就連賜人生命的主也排斥了。
我們鼓勵人憑著信心經歷神，我們相信靈修親近神就充滿著神蹟奇事，因為有耶穌在心裡就是神蹟。信徒可以敞開臉看見主的榮光，按照聖經所說：「這帕子在基督裡已經廢去了」（林後三：14）主的靈親自揭開蒙在心中的帕子，釋放了你，讓你得以自由，從此你就與主同行了。
所以根本上，屬神的人經歷屬神的事是理所當然的！
然而，我們的真相就是害怕，而且我們也害怕揭示真相。揭開帕子之後，你要在主面前敞開生命了，你真真正正的貼近這位主耶穌。我們要與這位陌生的主開始最深入生命的關係。你的生命有了愛你的主，但祂也等候你愛主更深。你的罪被抖了出來，也被主清洗乾淨。你的人際關係被主的愛觸摸了，但也表示了你要復和、寬恕和關懷你身邊的人。你的困難有了出路，但這出路也表示了你要面對困難。
經歷神的人就是不斷向真相開放自己，做一個勇敢向前邁進的人。你願意對自己的生命和信仰認真，勇敢地揭開帕子，與神相遇嗎？
Saturday, March 05, 2011
Hipster Faith
To remain relevant, many evangelical pastors are following the lead of hipster trendsetters. So what happens when 'cool' meets Christ?
Brett McCracken | posted 9/03/2010 10:26AM
(http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/september/9.24.html)
Here's a riddle: A young man walks into a building. From the outside, it looks like a nondescript, run-down, abandoned warehouse. Inside he finds mood lighting, music with throbbing bass, and young people wearing skinny jeans and superfluous scarves. A bar off to the side offers drinks of some sort, and a frenetically lit stage is shrouded in fog. Jumbo screens display what appear to be music videos. Everywhere people text on their iPhones.
A young woman with a nose ring and a vaguely Middle Eastern tattoo comes up andintroduces herself. She makes awkward (but refreshingly earnest) small talk about her passion for community gardens and food co-ops. She asks him if he has heard Arcade Fire's new album, and compliments him on his bushy beard and lumberjack look. Beards like that are cool, she says. Eventually she asks him for his contact information.
Question: Is the man in a bar? Or is he in a church?
It could go either way.
Welcome to the world of hipster Christianity. It's a world where things like the Left Behind book and film series, Jesus fish bumper stickers, and door-to-door evangelism are relevant only as a source of irony or nostalgia. It's a world where Braveheart youth-pastor analogies are anathema, where everyone agrees that they wish Pat Robertson "weren't one of us" and shares a collective distaste for the art of Thomas Kinkade.
The latest incarnation of a decades-long collision of "cool" and "Christianity," hipster Christianity is in large part a rebellion against the very subculture that birthed it. It's a rebellion against old-school evangelicalism and its fuddy-duddy legalism, apathy about the arts, and pitiful lack of concern for social justice. It's also a rebellion against George W. Bush—style Christianity: American flags in churches, the Ten Commandments in courtrooms, and evangelical leaders who get too involved in conservative politics, such as James Dobson and Jerry Falwell.
The new subculture of young evangelicals—I call them "Christian hipsters"—grew up on Contemporary Christian music (CCM), Focus on the Family's Adventures in Odyssey, flannel graphs, vacation Bible school, and hysteria about the end times. Now all of that is laughable to them, as they attempt to burn away the kitschy dross of the megachurch Christianity of their youth—with its emphasis on "soul-winning" at the expense of everything else—and trade it for something with real-world gravitas.
They prefer to call themselves "Christ-followers" rather than "Christians." They cringe at the thought of an altar call, and the prospect of passing out tracts gives them nightmares. Christian hipsters alarm some church leaders and mystify others. But for many observers, hipster Christianity is an exciting development. It reassures them that not all young people are abandoning the church. They are just rehabilitating its image, making it their own.
In order to remain relevant in this new landscape, many evangelical pastors and church leaders are following the lead of the hipster trendsetters, making sure their churches can check off all the important items on the hipster checklist:
- Get the church involved in social justice and creation care.
- Show clips from R-rated Coen Brothers films (e.g., No Country for Old Men, Fargo) during services.
- Sponsor church outings to microbreweries.
- Put a worship pastor onstage decked in clothes from American Apparel.
- Be okay with cussing.
- Print bulletins only on recycled cardstock.
- Use Helvetica fonts as much as possible.
- Leverage technologies like Twitter.
This is what hipster Christianity looks like; this is what it requires. But what does it all mean? As the latest zeitgeisty Christian subculture in a long string of zeitgeisty Christian subcultures, what does hipster Christianity offer the church??
And what does it take away?
The History of Cool Faith
Before we examine those questions, we need to take a whistle-stop tour through the somewhat brief history of "Christian cool."
By most accounts, the story of cool Christianity begins in the 1960s. Its seeds were planted in the exploding post-war youth culture, which gave rise to a new emphasis on youth ministry within evangelicalism, the growth of parachurch organizations like Youth Specialties (founded in 1969), and a general feeling that, to reach increasingly rebellious and countercultural adolescents, Christianity had to get a bit edgier and wiser to the trends of the day.
But the biggest boost for cool Christianity came in the most unexpected way—when, in the late '60s and early '70s, hippies started following Christ. Acid-tripping, long-haired, sandal-wearing hippies like Ted Wise and Lonnie Frisbee led the pack, as hip Christian coffeehouses and communes sprung up in San Francisco, Greenwich Village, Chicago, and all across the country. Denominations like Calvary Chapel and Vineyard exploded, fueled by the charismatic fervor of the young hippie converts. Christian rock was born, led by people like Chuck Girard, a friend of Brian Wilson's whose band Love Song came out of the Laguna Beach dope scene, and Larry Norman, "the grandfather of Christian rock," whose 1969 masterpiece, Upon This Rock, is considered the first Christian rock album. It wasn't long, however, before the alternative/organic Jesus movement lost steam in the process of becoming mainstream. It wasn't long before "Christian rock" the movement became CCM the industry.
By the 1980s, most of the Jesus People had cut their hair, shaved their beards, and traded in their tunics and sandals for argyle sweaters and penny loafers. Yet the legacy of the hippie Christian movement was alive and well. For one thing, the deeply personal, experiential, Spirit-filled emphasis of the Jesus People remained as the charismatic movement took off, as well as the "just how you like it," seeker-sensitive approach that became common evangelical practice. This included an emphasis on the new and an elevation of trend and cool. Following the lead of Chuck Smith, whose outreach to hippies through Calvary Chapel reaped huge dividends, more evangelical leaders in the 1980s and '90s actively sought cool. They began to reach out to the youth culture and form churches to fit its needs—motivated by a renewed desire to be contemporary, current, and relevant.
As a result, evangelicalism in the '90s had a firmly established youth culture, built on the infrastructure of a lucrative Christian retail industry and commercial subculture. Huge Christian rock festivals, Lord's Gym T-shirts, WWJD bracelets, Left Behind, and so forth. It was big business. It was corporate. It was schlocky kitsch. And it was begging to be rebelled against.
Enter the age of the Christian hipster. As the '90s gave way to the 2000s, young evangelicals reared in the ostentatious Je$us subculture began to rebel. They sought a more intellectual faith, one that didn't reject outright the culture, ideas, and art of the secular world. In typical hipster fashion, they rejected the corporate mentality of the purpose-driven megachurch and McMansion evangelicalism, and longed for a simpler, back-to-basics faith that was more about serving the poor than serving Starbucks in the church vestibule.
They looked up to young Christian authors and pastors like Shane Claiborne, Rob Bell, and Donald Miller, read Relevant magazine, adored indie-folk musician Sufjan Stevens, and were fascinated by ancient church liturgies and prayers. They began to dress and act like secular hipsters: drinking beer, getting tattoos, riding fixed-gear bikes, and eating raw and organic foods. They took interest in a broader range of issues (the environment, HIV/AIDS, globalization) than their parents' generation, and voted for Barack Obama.
In a way, the contemporary Christian hipster is a full-circle return to the Jesus People hippies of yesteryear. But the Jesus People were secular "hipsters" first, then—having converted to Christianity—began to shed their hippie clothes and customs to form communities that were set apart, ultimately becoming their own subculture (e.g., Jesus People USA). Today's Christian hipsters are doing the reverse. They seek to break out of the Christian subculture. The clothes and customs they shed are nothing less than the evangelical establishment itself, formed through decades of attempts at cool Christianity. Today's Christian hipsters retain their faith, but they want it to be compatible with, not contrary to, secular hipster counterculture. Their mission is to rebrand Christianity to be, if not completely void of its own brand altogether, at least cobranded and allied with the things that it had previously set itself in opposition to: art, academics, liberal politics, fashion, and so on.
As a result of its intentional melding of Christian and secular, hipster Christianity often feels a bit like a stealth operation. One cannot easily decipher the Christian elements of a Christian hipster, not because they aren't there, but because they aren't in the foreground as much as, say, the "can't miss it" sartorial expressions (lumberjack beards, vintage dresses, flask as accessory) that traditionally signify hip. You're telling me that indie folk singer is a Calvinist? Blue Like Jazz is a book about Christianity? That guy with the Poseidon tattoo I saw at the hookah bar last night is a Presbyterian pastor? Who knew?
The Hipster Look
In this confounding world of intentionally blurred distinctions and redefined categories, can we make out any clear marks of a Christian hipster?
What makes a church a "hipster church"? Does it have a one-word name that is either a Greek word or something evocative of creation? Does the pastor frequently use words like kingdom, authenticity, and justice, and drop names like N. T. Wright in sermons? Does the church advertise a gluten-free option for Communion? If the answer is yes to all of those questions, chances are that it's a hipster church.
Of course that's simplistic. The hipster Christianity that I discovered during the research for my book—which entailed visits to hipster churches and interviews all over the country—is actually complex and diverse in its incarnations, even if it isn't very diverse in ethnicity and socioeconomics. Hipster Christianity isn't a monolithic subculture that can be easily categorized, but it definitely has some recognizable characteristics.
One thing we can fairly say of hipster Christianity is that it frequently strives for shock value. Take, for example, Seattle's Mars Hill Church—a Christian hipster Mecca pastored by Mark Driscoll, the polarizing Howard Stern of neo-Calvinist Christianity. On the Sunday I visited, Driscoll's message was on the Dance of Mahanaim in the Song of Solomon (an "ancient striptease," as he referred to it, and "one of the steamiest passages in the Bible"). During his sermon, Driscoll—looking like a metrosexual jock in an Ed Hardy—esque tight T-shirt, cross necklace, and faux-hawk—talked about how wives should be "visually generous" with their husbands (e.g., they should keep the lights on when undressing and during sex). I never thought I'd hear a preacher talk about these things from the pulpit. And that's exactly the point.
Hipster Christianity's attention to shock value manifests in others ways. Some churches hold their services in bars and nightclubs—Mosaic in L.A. meets in the Mayan nightclub, and North Brooklyn Vineyard in New York meets at a place called the Trash Bar. Some churches, like Grace Chicago, host wine tastings or schedule outings to microbreweries. I even attended an Anglican church a few years ago that sponsored a cookout with fine wines, beer, and a selection of cigars from the priest's own humidor. Other churches focus more on the shock value of sermons, delving into touchy subjects such as homosexuality, child abuse, sex trafficking, HIV/AIDS, and so on, sometimes with an f-bomb or two thrown in for good measure.
Another distinguishing mark of hipster Christianity is the music in its worship services. In keeping with the overarching "avoid doing what everyone else is doing" motif of hipsterdom at large, most of the hipster churches I visited seemed done with the U2- starry-rock style that now dominates megachurch evangelicalism. Rather than contemporary praise choruses, many of them favored centuries-old hymns.
On the Sunday I visited Resurrection Presbyterian in Williamsburg, Brooklyn (the heart of worldwide hipster culture), the music was pared down (one singer and one instrumentalist), acoustic, vintage, and reverent. All the worship songs were old hymns, including "Immortal, Invisible, God Only Wise" and "Fairest Lord Jesus." Almost everyone in the audience was under 35.
Hipster Christianity also expresses itself theologically, through preaching that often emphasizes covenantal and "new creation" ideas and attempts to construct a more ecclesiological or community-centric view of salvation. Things like soul-winning and going to heaven are downplayed in favor of the notion that heaven will come down to earth and renew the broken creation. Thus, the world matters. It's not a piece of rotting kindling that we will abandon for heaven one day. It's the site of a renewed kingdom. All of this informs hipster Christianity's attention to things like social justice, environmentalism, and the arts, because if God is building his kingdom on earth, then it all matters.
Small But Influential
Lest we overemphasize its importance in worldwide Christianity, we should remember that hipster Christianity is a rather narrow subset of the faith: mostly white evangelical, mostly economically well-off. It has little pertinence to, say, a rural Appalachian church or a monastic community in Ohio, let alone most of Christendom in the non-Western world. It also has little impact on non-white communities in the U.S., a point made by Anthony Bradley—professor of theology at New York's King's College—in a recent blog post titled "Can hipster Christians reach non-hipster blacks and Latinos in urban areas?" Soong-Chan Rah asked a similar question in a recent Sojourners article, "Is the Emerging Church for Whites Only?"
Hipster Christianity is undoubtedly a specific enterprise, which means its overall impact on global Christianity might be negligible. But it's clearly shaping some aspects of evangelical culture.
One of hipsterdom's positive values is its concern for justice—whether it be sweatshops or sex trafficking, water wells or finance reform. Hipsters almost always champion the cause of the underdog (immigrants, the poor, minorities) over those with power and privilege. Christians would be hard-pressed to find any Scripture passages that suggest Jesus didn't do the same. Many Christians, sadly, have moved away from social justice and fighting for the well-being of the downtrodden, but Christian hipsters are leading the way back.
Hipster Christians also have a healthy appreciation for the finer things in God's creation. With childlike awe and wonder that betrays their otherwise cynical demeanor, hipsters glory in the little pleasures of life: riding bikes along rivers, eating homemade macarons on a blanket in a friend's front yard, or playing Frisbee in the park. Hipsters appreciate the detail and artistry of creative, well-crafted films, music, books, and woodwork. They take the arts seriously and recognize their crucial part in human flourishing. Mainstream evangelical Christianity—too long in the ghetto of subpar subculture—should take note.
On the other hand, some wonder if hipster Christianity goes too far in embracing worldly things—especially when those things arguably become stumbling blocks or idols in the Christian life. Some suspect that its rebellious embrace of formerly taboo behaviors actually might do more long-term harm than good.
In order to be a hipster, one must be a rebel. Despite the fact that (ironically) hipster culture usually operates within and is sustained by the very structures it opposes, hipsterdom's raison d'être is countercultural, boundary-pushing rebellion. As such, hipster existence is frequently rife with vices. If hipsters cannot completely overthrow the structures that bind them, they can at least destabilize them by engaging in hedonistic behavior: smoking, drinking, cursing, sexual experimentation, and so on. It's about freedom, partying, and transgression—not in the Jersey Shore, frat-party sense (unless ironically), but in the "bourbon cask ales taste good and I don't care if I get drunk" sense. Hipsters ridicule bourgeois concerns such as "cigarettes cause cancer" and "drinking should be done in moderation," opting instead to recklessly embrace such vices with "why not?" abandon. If you aren't willing to engage in at least some of this "subversive hedonism," you will have a hard time maintaining any hipster credibility.
But what does this mean for Christian hipsters? When, in the name of rebellion and "freedom in Christ," Christian hipsters begin to look and act just like their secular hipster counterparts, drinking and smoking all the same things, shouldn't we raise a red flag?
Isn't Christianity supposed to be distinguishable and set apart from the world? Christian hipsters are rebelling against a mainstream Christianity that they see as too indistinguishable from secular mainstream culture (i.e., consumerist, numbers-driven, Fox News—watching, immigrant-hating, SUV-driving), but their corrective may not turn out much better. Some hipster Christianity is as indistinguishable from its secular hipster counterpart as yesterday's megachurch Christianity was indistinguishable from secular soccer-mom suburbia.
The challenge for hipster Christians is to figure out what it means, in their cultural context, to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness (Eph. 4:24). We are new creations, and the old has passed away (2 Cor. 5:17). How does that mesh with the Pabst-guzzling, Parliament-smoking nonchalant image that seems important to many hipsters?
Another concern about hipster Christianity is its fundamentally disposable, moving-on-to-what's-next transience. Granted, there is a tension here, because hipsters are rediscovering ancient liturgy and hymns. But one gets the impression that these are valued mostly because they are countercultural and therefore cool in their own way. But cool is all about the "now." It relentlessly pursues the next big thing, abandoning today's trend for tomorrow's with mechanistic speed and efficiency (think trucker hats or messenger bags).
This "of the moment" trendiness is an understandably appealing quality for those seeking to advance Christianity in today's world. How can we be taken seriously if we are perceived as behind the times or irrelevant? This is the reasoning that leads many churches to obsess about keeping their churches on pace with the latest technologies, worship music trends, or theological buzzwords (missional!). But is this painstaking, resource-draining rat race of staying ahead of the pack worth it? And what happens to Christianity when it becomes, like hipsterdom, a chameleon of fleeting fashion and transient trend?
As hipster Christianity grows, the temptation for church leaders will be to fashion themselves (and their churches) in the hipster mold. But in so doing, these churches will likely only reinforce a growing distinction between "authentic hipster" and "wannabe hip" churches. The former type is often simply an organic embodiment of an urban environment where hipsters live (and, thus, attend church). These churches are hip not because they self-consciously strive to be, but because they happen to exist in a hipster milieu (e.g., Resurrection Presbyterian in Brooklyn, or Grace Church in London's Hackney neighborhood).
The latter type, on the other hand, appropriates what it perceives to be the prevailing hipster sensibilities in a utilitarian, "staying relevant" way. These wannabe hip churches—largely of the suburban, megachurch, and "contemporary evening service" variety—dress themselves in the accoutrements of hipsterdom not because they understand or value it, but because they are terrified of being excluded, left behind, or undesirable. They are playing catch up, frantically maneuvering to be in the inner rings of culture and fashion rather than the dreaded periphery.
Wannabe-hip churches are springing up everywhere these days, but what will it mean for the larger church? Will this sort of Christianity bring back the youth, or will it further alienate a younger generation fed up with being a target market? Will hipster Christianity repair Christianity's PR problem? Or will it fizzle in a faddish wisp before anyone can say lectio divina?
These are open questions. In the meantime, hipster Christianity is a sometimes encouraging, sometimes maddening, always fascinating phenomenon. It defies easy yes-or-no understanding. And that's precisely how it prefers it to be.
Brett McCracken is author of Hipster Christianity: When Church and Cool Collide (Baker, 2010). He works at Biola University in Los Angeles.
Copyright © 2010 Christianity Today.
Brett McCracken | posted 9/03/2010 10:26AM
(http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/september/9.24.html)
Here's a riddle: A young man walks into a building. From the outside, it looks like a nondescript, run-down, abandoned warehouse. Inside he finds mood lighting, music with throbbing bass, and young people wearing skinny jeans and superfluous scarves. A bar off to the side offers drinks of some sort, and a frenetically lit stage is shrouded in fog. Jumbo screens display what appear to be music videos. Everywhere people text on their iPhones.
A young woman with a nose ring and a vaguely Middle Eastern tattoo comes up andintroduces herself. She makes awkward (but refreshingly earnest) small talk about her passion for community gardens and food co-ops. She asks him if he has heard Arcade Fire's new album, and compliments him on his bushy beard and lumberjack look. Beards like that are cool, she says. Eventually she asks him for his contact information.
Question: Is the man in a bar? Or is he in a church?
It could go either way.
Welcome to the world of hipster Christianity. It's a world where things like the Left Behind book and film series, Jesus fish bumper stickers, and door-to-door evangelism are relevant only as a source of irony or nostalgia. It's a world where Braveheart youth-pastor analogies are anathema, where everyone agrees that they wish Pat Robertson "weren't one of us" and shares a collective distaste for the art of Thomas Kinkade.
The latest incarnation of a decades-long collision of "cool" and "Christianity," hipster Christianity is in large part a rebellion against the very subculture that birthed it. It's a rebellion against old-school evangelicalism and its fuddy-duddy legalism, apathy about the arts, and pitiful lack of concern for social justice. It's also a rebellion against George W. Bush—style Christianity: American flags in churches, the Ten Commandments in courtrooms, and evangelical leaders who get too involved in conservative politics, such as James Dobson and Jerry Falwell.
The new subculture of young evangelicals—I call them "Christian hipsters"—grew up on Contemporary Christian music (CCM), Focus on the Family's Adventures in Odyssey, flannel graphs, vacation Bible school, and hysteria about the end times. Now all of that is laughable to them, as they attempt to burn away the kitschy dross of the megachurch Christianity of their youth—with its emphasis on "soul-winning" at the expense of everything else—and trade it for something with real-world gravitas.
They prefer to call themselves "Christ-followers" rather than "Christians." They cringe at the thought of an altar call, and the prospect of passing out tracts gives them nightmares. Christian hipsters alarm some church leaders and mystify others. But for many observers, hipster Christianity is an exciting development. It reassures them that not all young people are abandoning the church. They are just rehabilitating its image, making it their own.
In order to remain relevant in this new landscape, many evangelical pastors and church leaders are following the lead of the hipster trendsetters, making sure their churches can check off all the important items on the hipster checklist:
- Get the church involved in social justice and creation care.
- Show clips from R-rated Coen Brothers films (e.g., No Country for Old Men, Fargo) during services.
- Sponsor church outings to microbreweries.
- Put a worship pastor onstage decked in clothes from American Apparel.
- Be okay with cussing.
- Print bulletins only on recycled cardstock.
- Use Helvetica fonts as much as possible.
- Leverage technologies like Twitter.
This is what hipster Christianity looks like; this is what it requires. But what does it all mean? As the latest zeitgeisty Christian subculture in a long string of zeitgeisty Christian subcultures, what does hipster Christianity offer the church??
And what does it take away?
The History of Cool Faith
Before we examine those questions, we need to take a whistle-stop tour through the somewhat brief history of "Christian cool."
By most accounts, the story of cool Christianity begins in the 1960s. Its seeds were planted in the exploding post-war youth culture, which gave rise to a new emphasis on youth ministry within evangelicalism, the growth of parachurch organizations like Youth Specialties (founded in 1969), and a general feeling that, to reach increasingly rebellious and countercultural adolescents, Christianity had to get a bit edgier and wiser to the trends of the day.
But the biggest boost for cool Christianity came in the most unexpected way—when, in the late '60s and early '70s, hippies started following Christ. Acid-tripping, long-haired, sandal-wearing hippies like Ted Wise and Lonnie Frisbee led the pack, as hip Christian coffeehouses and communes sprung up in San Francisco, Greenwich Village, Chicago, and all across the country. Denominations like Calvary Chapel and Vineyard exploded, fueled by the charismatic fervor of the young hippie converts. Christian rock was born, led by people like Chuck Girard, a friend of Brian Wilson's whose band Love Song came out of the Laguna Beach dope scene, and Larry Norman, "the grandfather of Christian rock," whose 1969 masterpiece, Upon This Rock, is considered the first Christian rock album. It wasn't long, however, before the alternative/organic Jesus movement lost steam in the process of becoming mainstream. It wasn't long before "Christian rock" the movement became CCM the industry.
By the 1980s, most of the Jesus People had cut their hair, shaved their beards, and traded in their tunics and sandals for argyle sweaters and penny loafers. Yet the legacy of the hippie Christian movement was alive and well. For one thing, the deeply personal, experiential, Spirit-filled emphasis of the Jesus People remained as the charismatic movement took off, as well as the "just how you like it," seeker-sensitive approach that became common evangelical practice. This included an emphasis on the new and an elevation of trend and cool. Following the lead of Chuck Smith, whose outreach to hippies through Calvary Chapel reaped huge dividends, more evangelical leaders in the 1980s and '90s actively sought cool. They began to reach out to the youth culture and form churches to fit its needs—motivated by a renewed desire to be contemporary, current, and relevant.
As a result, evangelicalism in the '90s had a firmly established youth culture, built on the infrastructure of a lucrative Christian retail industry and commercial subculture. Huge Christian rock festivals, Lord's Gym T-shirts, WWJD bracelets, Left Behind, and so forth. It was big business. It was corporate. It was schlocky kitsch. And it was begging to be rebelled against.
Enter the age of the Christian hipster. As the '90s gave way to the 2000s, young evangelicals reared in the ostentatious Je$us subculture began to rebel. They sought a more intellectual faith, one that didn't reject outright the culture, ideas, and art of the secular world. In typical hipster fashion, they rejected the corporate mentality of the purpose-driven megachurch and McMansion evangelicalism, and longed for a simpler, back-to-basics faith that was more about serving the poor than serving Starbucks in the church vestibule.
They looked up to young Christian authors and pastors like Shane Claiborne, Rob Bell, and Donald Miller, read Relevant magazine, adored indie-folk musician Sufjan Stevens, and were fascinated by ancient church liturgies and prayers. They began to dress and act like secular hipsters: drinking beer, getting tattoos, riding fixed-gear bikes, and eating raw and organic foods. They took interest in a broader range of issues (the environment, HIV/AIDS, globalization) than their parents' generation, and voted for Barack Obama.
In a way, the contemporary Christian hipster is a full-circle return to the Jesus People hippies of yesteryear. But the Jesus People were secular "hipsters" first, then—having converted to Christianity—began to shed their hippie clothes and customs to form communities that were set apart, ultimately becoming their own subculture (e.g., Jesus People USA). Today's Christian hipsters are doing the reverse. They seek to break out of the Christian subculture. The clothes and customs they shed are nothing less than the evangelical establishment itself, formed through decades of attempts at cool Christianity. Today's Christian hipsters retain their faith, but they want it to be compatible with, not contrary to, secular hipster counterculture. Their mission is to rebrand Christianity to be, if not completely void of its own brand altogether, at least cobranded and allied with the things that it had previously set itself in opposition to: art, academics, liberal politics, fashion, and so on.
As a result of its intentional melding of Christian and secular, hipster Christianity often feels a bit like a stealth operation. One cannot easily decipher the Christian elements of a Christian hipster, not because they aren't there, but because they aren't in the foreground as much as, say, the "can't miss it" sartorial expressions (lumberjack beards, vintage dresses, flask as accessory) that traditionally signify hip. You're telling me that indie folk singer is a Calvinist? Blue Like Jazz is a book about Christianity? That guy with the Poseidon tattoo I saw at the hookah bar last night is a Presbyterian pastor? Who knew?
The Hipster Look
In this confounding world of intentionally blurred distinctions and redefined categories, can we make out any clear marks of a Christian hipster?
What makes a church a "hipster church"? Does it have a one-word name that is either a Greek word or something evocative of creation? Does the pastor frequently use words like kingdom, authenticity, and justice, and drop names like N. T. Wright in sermons? Does the church advertise a gluten-free option for Communion? If the answer is yes to all of those questions, chances are that it's a hipster church.
Of course that's simplistic. The hipster Christianity that I discovered during the research for my book—which entailed visits to hipster churches and interviews all over the country—is actually complex and diverse in its incarnations, even if it isn't very diverse in ethnicity and socioeconomics. Hipster Christianity isn't a monolithic subculture that can be easily categorized, but it definitely has some recognizable characteristics.
One thing we can fairly say of hipster Christianity is that it frequently strives for shock value. Take, for example, Seattle's Mars Hill Church—a Christian hipster Mecca pastored by Mark Driscoll, the polarizing Howard Stern of neo-Calvinist Christianity. On the Sunday I visited, Driscoll's message was on the Dance of Mahanaim in the Song of Solomon (an "ancient striptease," as he referred to it, and "one of the steamiest passages in the Bible"). During his sermon, Driscoll—looking like a metrosexual jock in an Ed Hardy—esque tight T-shirt, cross necklace, and faux-hawk—talked about how wives should be "visually generous" with their husbands (e.g., they should keep the lights on when undressing and during sex). I never thought I'd hear a preacher talk about these things from the pulpit. And that's exactly the point.
Hipster Christianity's attention to shock value manifests in others ways. Some churches hold their services in bars and nightclubs—Mosaic in L.A. meets in the Mayan nightclub, and North Brooklyn Vineyard in New York meets at a place called the Trash Bar. Some churches, like Grace Chicago, host wine tastings or schedule outings to microbreweries. I even attended an Anglican church a few years ago that sponsored a cookout with fine wines, beer, and a selection of cigars from the priest's own humidor. Other churches focus more on the shock value of sermons, delving into touchy subjects such as homosexuality, child abuse, sex trafficking, HIV/AIDS, and so on, sometimes with an f-bomb or two thrown in for good measure.
Another distinguishing mark of hipster Christianity is the music in its worship services. In keeping with the overarching "avoid doing what everyone else is doing" motif of hipsterdom at large, most of the hipster churches I visited seemed done with the U2- starry-rock style that now dominates megachurch evangelicalism. Rather than contemporary praise choruses, many of them favored centuries-old hymns.
On the Sunday I visited Resurrection Presbyterian in Williamsburg, Brooklyn (the heart of worldwide hipster culture), the music was pared down (one singer and one instrumentalist), acoustic, vintage, and reverent. All the worship songs were old hymns, including "Immortal, Invisible, God Only Wise" and "Fairest Lord Jesus." Almost everyone in the audience was under 35.
Hipster Christianity also expresses itself theologically, through preaching that often emphasizes covenantal and "new creation" ideas and attempts to construct a more ecclesiological or community-centric view of salvation. Things like soul-winning and going to heaven are downplayed in favor of the notion that heaven will come down to earth and renew the broken creation. Thus, the world matters. It's not a piece of rotting kindling that we will abandon for heaven one day. It's the site of a renewed kingdom. All of this informs hipster Christianity's attention to things like social justice, environmentalism, and the arts, because if God is building his kingdom on earth, then it all matters.
Small But Influential
Lest we overemphasize its importance in worldwide Christianity, we should remember that hipster Christianity is a rather narrow subset of the faith: mostly white evangelical, mostly economically well-off. It has little pertinence to, say, a rural Appalachian church or a monastic community in Ohio, let alone most of Christendom in the non-Western world. It also has little impact on non-white communities in the U.S., a point made by Anthony Bradley—professor of theology at New York's King's College—in a recent blog post titled "Can hipster Christians reach non-hipster blacks and Latinos in urban areas?" Soong-Chan Rah asked a similar question in a recent Sojourners article, "Is the Emerging Church for Whites Only?"
Hipster Christianity is undoubtedly a specific enterprise, which means its overall impact on global Christianity might be negligible. But it's clearly shaping some aspects of evangelical culture.
One of hipsterdom's positive values is its concern for justice—whether it be sweatshops or sex trafficking, water wells or finance reform. Hipsters almost always champion the cause of the underdog (immigrants, the poor, minorities) over those with power and privilege. Christians would be hard-pressed to find any Scripture passages that suggest Jesus didn't do the same. Many Christians, sadly, have moved away from social justice and fighting for the well-being of the downtrodden, but Christian hipsters are leading the way back.
Hipster Christians also have a healthy appreciation for the finer things in God's creation. With childlike awe and wonder that betrays their otherwise cynical demeanor, hipsters glory in the little pleasures of life: riding bikes along rivers, eating homemade macarons on a blanket in a friend's front yard, or playing Frisbee in the park. Hipsters appreciate the detail and artistry of creative, well-crafted films, music, books, and woodwork. They take the arts seriously and recognize their crucial part in human flourishing. Mainstream evangelical Christianity—too long in the ghetto of subpar subculture—should take note.
On the other hand, some wonder if hipster Christianity goes too far in embracing worldly things—especially when those things arguably become stumbling blocks or idols in the Christian life. Some suspect that its rebellious embrace of formerly taboo behaviors actually might do more long-term harm than good.
In order to be a hipster, one must be a rebel. Despite the fact that (ironically) hipster culture usually operates within and is sustained by the very structures it opposes, hipsterdom's raison d'être is countercultural, boundary-pushing rebellion. As such, hipster existence is frequently rife with vices. If hipsters cannot completely overthrow the structures that bind them, they can at least destabilize them by engaging in hedonistic behavior: smoking, drinking, cursing, sexual experimentation, and so on. It's about freedom, partying, and transgression—not in the Jersey Shore, frat-party sense (unless ironically), but in the "bourbon cask ales taste good and I don't care if I get drunk" sense. Hipsters ridicule bourgeois concerns such as "cigarettes cause cancer" and "drinking should be done in moderation," opting instead to recklessly embrace such vices with "why not?" abandon. If you aren't willing to engage in at least some of this "subversive hedonism," you will have a hard time maintaining any hipster credibility.
But what does this mean for Christian hipsters? When, in the name of rebellion and "freedom in Christ," Christian hipsters begin to look and act just like their secular hipster counterparts, drinking and smoking all the same things, shouldn't we raise a red flag?
Isn't Christianity supposed to be distinguishable and set apart from the world? Christian hipsters are rebelling against a mainstream Christianity that they see as too indistinguishable from secular mainstream culture (i.e., consumerist, numbers-driven, Fox News—watching, immigrant-hating, SUV-driving), but their corrective may not turn out much better. Some hipster Christianity is as indistinguishable from its secular hipster counterpart as yesterday's megachurch Christianity was indistinguishable from secular soccer-mom suburbia.
The challenge for hipster Christians is to figure out what it means, in their cultural context, to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness (Eph. 4:24). We are new creations, and the old has passed away (2 Cor. 5:17). How does that mesh with the Pabst-guzzling, Parliament-smoking nonchalant image that seems important to many hipsters?
Another concern about hipster Christianity is its fundamentally disposable, moving-on-to-what's-next transience. Granted, there is a tension here, because hipsters are rediscovering ancient liturgy and hymns. But one gets the impression that these are valued mostly because they are countercultural and therefore cool in their own way. But cool is all about the "now." It relentlessly pursues the next big thing, abandoning today's trend for tomorrow's with mechanistic speed and efficiency (think trucker hats or messenger bags).
This "of the moment" trendiness is an understandably appealing quality for those seeking to advance Christianity in today's world. How can we be taken seriously if we are perceived as behind the times or irrelevant? This is the reasoning that leads many churches to obsess about keeping their churches on pace with the latest technologies, worship music trends, or theological buzzwords (missional!). But is this painstaking, resource-draining rat race of staying ahead of the pack worth it? And what happens to Christianity when it becomes, like hipsterdom, a chameleon of fleeting fashion and transient trend?
As hipster Christianity grows, the temptation for church leaders will be to fashion themselves (and their churches) in the hipster mold. But in so doing, these churches will likely only reinforce a growing distinction between "authentic hipster" and "wannabe hip" churches. The former type is often simply an organic embodiment of an urban environment where hipsters live (and, thus, attend church). These churches are hip not because they self-consciously strive to be, but because they happen to exist in a hipster milieu (e.g., Resurrection Presbyterian in Brooklyn, or Grace Church in London's Hackney neighborhood).
The latter type, on the other hand, appropriates what it perceives to be the prevailing hipster sensibilities in a utilitarian, "staying relevant" way. These wannabe hip churches—largely of the suburban, megachurch, and "contemporary evening service" variety—dress themselves in the accoutrements of hipsterdom not because they understand or value it, but because they are terrified of being excluded, left behind, or undesirable. They are playing catch up, frantically maneuvering to be in the inner rings of culture and fashion rather than the dreaded periphery.
Wannabe-hip churches are springing up everywhere these days, but what will it mean for the larger church? Will this sort of Christianity bring back the youth, or will it further alienate a younger generation fed up with being a target market? Will hipster Christianity repair Christianity's PR problem? Or will it fizzle in a faddish wisp before anyone can say lectio divina?
These are open questions. In the meantime, hipster Christianity is a sometimes encouraging, sometimes maddening, always fascinating phenomenon. It defies easy yes-or-no understanding. And that's precisely how it prefers it to be.
Brett McCracken is author of Hipster Christianity: When Church and Cool Collide (Baker, 2010). He works at Biola University in Los Angeles.
Copyright © 2010 Christianity Today.
Friday, March 04, 2011
「我對蘋果哲學的理解－蘋果的騙局」
(轉載自：http://unwire.hk/2011/03/04/appleipad2trap/column/）
在國內的 cnBeta 網站，出現了一篇名為「我對蘋果哲學的理解－蘋果的騙局」(http://www.cnbeta.com/articles/136262.htm)，在網絡上隨即惹來爭議。當然一間企業有人支持亦有會有人反對，我們可以聽取他們的心聲分享，為方便閱讀我們把原文轉成了繁體，不知各位閱讀後有甚麼意見呢?可以發表一下
借iPad2發佈的契機，把這篇長久以來的構想落在筆頭。就像我在狀態中所說的，我佩服蘋果的技術，卻不能接受蘋果的哲學。騙局？你肯定不信。待我問你，iPad2最大的賣點是什麼？你會說，加上了攝像頭，前後兩個，減小了厚度，加了蓋，"2x/9x"的速度提升。好，我們單說 加了攝像頭這一點。想一想，當今世面上的電腦、網本、智慧手機，能找到一款沒有攝像頭的麼？難。攝像頭已經成為移動電子產品的標配，為什麼iPad2上裝 了攝像頭，大家就無比激動？因為iPad1沒有攝像頭。那麼請想一想，為什麼iPad1沒有攝像頭？
如果你還沒有被騙的感覺，請繼續往下看。
蘋果的技術與行銷
任何一家依靠技術立足的公司，都必須有源源不斷的技術創新。然而，大家能在市場上買到的所謂"新"產品，其實並不一定是那家公司的最新技術。新技術是市場競爭中的籌碼，籌碼一定要攢在手中，適時的試用。如果產品在市場上業績不錯，一個公司沒有必要用出籌碼。只有當產品推出時間長了，銷量下滑了，人們開始淡忘了，或者有競爭產品推出時，一個公司才會吧之前已有的研發成果包裝成新產品推向市場。總而言之，所有企業在推出新技術時都是有所保留的，這是基本的策略，不足為奇。
蘋果卻將這種策略退向了極致。蘋果的技術保留，往往不是它的新技術，而是陳舊成熟的技術，或簡單易得的技術。
iPad2 的攝像頭是一個明顯的例證。攝像頭是非常成熟的技術，安裝攝像頭對於蘋果這樣的公司簡直沒有任何技術難度可言。從工程設計上，恐怕蘋果只要1個星期的時間 就能搞定，增加的成本也忽略不計。那麼它為什麼不在iPad1上安裝攝像頭？難道Jobs喝醉了忘記要求了？明顯不是，這就是為了讓iPad2顯得有所進 步。
再說iPad2的HDMI接電視的功能。在蘋果的官方網站上，有一個iPad1的VGA輸出附件，利用這個附件，可以把視頻和 Keynote輸出到電視或投影。然而，如果你留意一下這個附件下面的留言，幾乎所有用戶的評價都是2星一下，因為大家都希望共用其它App的顯示。但對 於iPad1，這是不能做到的。是技術上的限制麼？顯然不是，明明在發佈會上，Jobs都可以吧自己的iPhone/iPad螢幕投影到大螢幕上。使用者不 能這麼做，完全是個軟體上的限制。現在，iPad2支援了這個功能，從技術上，或許僅僅是注釋掉了幾行代碼，1分鐘的成本都用不了。
這樣的例子有很多，諸如iPhone4的Video Call，錄影。
這樣做，蘋果得了大利益。它開發一代新產品的成本非常低廉。不瞭解技術的用戶紛紛以為所有新產品的亮點都是技術革新，從而覺得新產品遠遠超越了原產品。這是一個假像。大部分新產品中的亮點，都是原本理所當然出現，卻硬生生的砍掉的。的確，新產品遠遠超越了原產品，不是因為新產品高端，而是因為原產品低端。
總結起來，蘋果的思路是，先用鮑魚龍蝦把你吸引來，然後餓著你，餓夠了再高價給你加個宮爆雞丁，你還激動的要死。殊不知如果你不貪那鮑魚龍蝦的面子，可以在別家吃的酒足飯飽。
強勢控制
所有企業都號稱以用戶為本，蘋果也不例外，號稱每個產品的更新，都聽取了大量用戶的回饋。但是蘋果真的在乎用戶麼？蘋果其實很強勢。
蘋果的每樣產品，多樣性都極其匱乏。並且這少的可憐的多樣性也僅僅體現在一些"硬"指標上，諸如記憶體大小、快閃記憶體大小。消費者沒有在功能上的選擇餘地，硬體軟體皆如此。蘋果的產品，充斥著這樣的信號：“我說有的就有；我說沒有的就沒有；我說有但是不給你的，你就別想要”。
Mac OS X不支持最大化是眾所周知的。"我們認為視窗的大小應該適合裡面的內容。" 好，就算你認為這是合理的，那麼你應該考慮到世界上還有很多認為"內容應該被調整以填滿整個視窗"的人，給個選項不好麼？蘋果的回答是，給你什麼你就用，抱怨也沒用。
又如上一節提到的，蘋果故意在產品中保留一些非常廉價、簡單、理所當然的功能。"大家都有的功能我偏不裝"，一樣是強勢的表現。
蘋果之所以這樣強勢，是為了樹立威信。人總是對待弱者很專橫，而對待強硬者就服服貼貼的。蘋果做出強硬的面孔，反倒利用了人的這種本性，讓人覺得“蘋果的概念都是真理，是我自己沒見過世面、太老土；蘋果的產品都是最高端的科技，是我自己的要求太科幻、白日夢。” 於是，人們也就不再吭聲了。
封閉的產品
蘋果的野心可謂無窮。它試圖以它的產品建立一個完全封閉的系統，以形成壟斷。微軟也曾經被指流覽器的壟斷，和蘋果相比，簡直小巫見大巫。蘋果經常藐視業界成文或不成文的標準、規範，藐視人們的習慣，只為建立自己的壟斷之勢。
iPhone 和iPad都有1G甚至更高頻率的處理器，卻不支援flash播放。flash已經成為目前互聯網上最常用的多媒體交互平臺，沒有之一。即時我個人也不主 張不必要的用flash，但蘋果直接選擇不支援flash，無疑又是挑戰標準的一例證。為什麼？因為flash本身是一個完善的多媒體交互環境，很多 iPhone/iPad app其實完全可以在flash中實現，況且flash是完全跨平臺的。如果開放了flash，就意味著開發人員或用戶可能放棄蘋果自己的環境，轉而直接 開發flash版本，使得蘋果成為一個空殼。為了商業利益，還是犧牲一下用戶吧。
iPad沒有SD卡槽。SD卡恐怕是當今最流行的存儲卡格式。即便Sony的筆記本，也在支持記憶棒的同時支持SD卡了。iPad不支持，是為了避免用戶買一個8G的iPad再配一個8G的SD卡，這樣的價格遠遠低於16G的iPad。
用過iPhone的人都知道，iPhone號稱支援藍牙，其實只支援藍牙耳機。市面上幾乎全部藍牙手機，都支持通過藍牙共用檔，唯獨iPhone不支持。猜測這是為了迫使使用者用網路傳輸，產生流量費用。
蘋果的軟體也極其封閉。這無需我解釋了。
營造產品的生態圈是人們所提倡的，但應該允許其它廠家的產品參與到競爭中來。蘋果卻努力排斥目前通行的行業標準，從而故意製造和其它廠商產品的不相容，以便形成自己封閉的生態圈。這是明顯的壟斷。
（值得一提的是，蘋果也服軟。它不敢不支援doc/docx/ppt/pptx，不敢不支援youtube。）
總結
我承認，蘋果擁有絕對領先的工程技術。然而，蘋果卻沒有利用這樣先進的技術千方百計造福人類，它想的全是如何斂財。我不否認斂財是一個公司的最重要功能之一。但是作為蘋果這樣一個世界上名列前茅的公司，理應在斂財之外，擔負起站在這個位置的社會責任來。
蘋 果擁有領先的技術，卻故意人為的製造產品的瑕疵，以期為後續產品贏得市場。蘋果故意抵制對自己壟斷事業不利的行業標準。要知道，一個規範的定型是一件非常 不易的事情，標準是人類智慧的結晶。只有有了標準，競爭才有準繩，技術的發展才有所依據，才能減少重複開發和浪費，提高效率。
作為消費電子 的使用者，我感到不被尊重，因為每當使用蘋果的產品，就有被強迫、被束縛的感覺。作為電子工程師，我感到羞恥，因為我看到人們夢想的技術不能得以實現，不是 被技術本身所限，不是被成本所限，而是被企業的野心與利益驅使所限；看到人類智慧的結晶被藐視，只因為企業的壟斷野心。
蘋果擁有領先的技術、地位、市場，卻不能承擔起應有的社會責任。這就是我對蘋果哲學的看法。
來源 :http://www.cnbeta.com/articles/136262.htm
Tuesday, March 01, 2011
We are indeed in need...
Life Application Study Bible Devotion
Exodus 4:10-13
Moses pleaded with God to let him out of his mission. After all, he was not a good speaker and would probably embarrass both himself and God. But God looked at Moses' problem quite differently. All Moses needed was some help, and who better than God to help him say and do the right things? God made his mouth and would give him the words to say. It is easy for us to focus on our weaknesses, but if God asks us to do something, then he will help us get the job done. If the job involves some of our weak areas, then we can trust that he will provide words, strength, courage, and ability where needed.
Exodus 4:10-13
Moses pleaded with God to let him out of his mission. After all, he was not a good speaker and would probably embarrass both himself and God. But God looked at Moses' problem quite differently. All Moses needed was some help, and who better than God to help him say and do the right things? God made his mouth and would give him the words to say. It is easy for us to focus on our weaknesses, but if God asks us to do something, then he will help us get the job done. If the job involves some of our weak areas, then we can trust that he will provide words, strength, courage, and ability where needed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)