It is obvious that the real take away here is that the accepted cultural markers for rebellion--tattoos, rock, hair, clothes, etc-are now obsolete. These previous tasty bits of counterculture are now mainstream culture as measured by their complete adoption (co-optation) by members of some of our largest cultural institutions, eg. the Christian Church. Once "Christian" rock bands are indistinguishable from actual rock bands, and you can purchase your "alternative " kit off the shelf, you know the schtick is dead. It had a good long run, but it is now time to exercise a little creativity and come up with something new.

Contrary to many popular pronouncements American culture is not shallow, sterile, or valueless (though many of our citizens are). American life is rich in culture and if you look there is a lot of material for a new meaningful counter culture, or even just a plain meaningful culture, but it takes some effort to come to. Umm, like you have to read a book or two. Many people seem to be too lazy to avail themselves of this culture and prefer pre-packaged full-meal deals like the Mars Hill Church. A new alternative culture needs to be developed for these lazier people.

This future rebellion should obviously make a radical departure from what is essentially Rock culture (1966-2006 r.i.p). I am not sure what to suggest. I tried conducting what I called a preppy rebellion from 1993-1998, that is co-opting the very traditional preppy look, listening to old jazz, disengaging from popular culture, and writing formal poetry and faux 19th century novels, but it was pretty much a failure and never really caught on. ANd I got tired of explaining that I was not a conservation, but was instead a radical. For those of you who can remember 1993, it was a period when the native culture of the Pacific Northwest had been turned into a ubiquitous, world-wide fashion phenomena. It was disconcerting to see my native culture abused on the streets of Paris in the form of young French girls wearing high, lace-up logger boots. Anyway, the point is all of that is philosphically dead and the kids need to come up with something new. Three piece suits? Classical music? Folk culture? Togas and Periclean Athens? Get to it!

Poco, how is hierarchy in marriage a law of nature? Why is marriage better if one spouse is above the other? If "clarity" means one person making decisions, I'd rather have a "confused" relationship--where two adults learn to discuss, compromise, and come to mutually acceptable decisions. It takes work, but it's worth it, and it makes a marriage stronger in the end.

-from a 30-year-old churchgoing Episcopalian who's, thankfully, in a marriage based on equal partnership

The most curious point of this article--which reveals so much more about Sandler's shallowness than the her subject's callowness--is that she reacts so strangely, even contemptously, to the fact that Mars Hill members built their pastor/friend a fence. She writes that she has friends she's considered family for years who she'd never expect to haul wood for her, much less build her a fence. What an impoverished conception of friendship--not to mention family--she has! You mean Sandler wouldn't help her best friend from college, her mom, her favorite co-worked build a fence if needed? With friends like her . . . . She seems incapable of seeing MHC unironically; the members' spritual quest for love and community can never rise above the level of sentimentality and cheesiness. Why? Because they have tattoos? Because spiritualism isn't an interest of Sandler's? Sandler's whole take in this article is so sad and myopic--exactly the sort of diminished worldview that has driven the Disciple Generation (to use the clunky kenning that Sandler is surely desperate to see vaunted to buzzword status; I suspect she'll be tracking that one on Google for weeks) to form the kind of church communities they have.

I loathe it when liberals feel a need to prove their liberal bona fides when arguing in defense of either people of faith or of conservatives, but let me say I'm a progressive, gay agnostic who's never voted for a Republican, doesn't shop at Wal-Mart, volunteers for an indigent AIDS survivor service agency blah blah blah. While I'm not comfortable with the MHC's conception of women's roles, their definition of Jesus as a philospher who spoke truth to power, eschewed materialism, and encouraged community is all right by me. Sandler points out that the pastor has adopted children as if there were something sinister about it. I fully support abortion rights and encourage those who don't to put their money where their mouths are and adopt children. The pastor is simply "walking the walk"; it's an admirable example of what used to be called "muscular Christianity." Likewise I applaud the church's mentoring of younger members by organzing living arrangements--another example of practicing what they preach. What should these church members do, NOT lead by example? Whenever people of faith--esp. evangelical Christians--actually live exemplary (in both senses of the word) lives, I applaud them. It's the ones who preach and judge one day a week and lead self-centered, materialistic, consumerist lives the other six days that make me puke.

At the risk of going all Sean Hannity on your ass, Sandler is simply bashing this church not because it's sinister or evil but just because it's a church. If there IS something sinister or evil about MHC, Sandler's done a piss-poor job of laying out her thesis.

MHC members are Christians, "not," as Seinfeld said, "that there's anything wrong with that."

"Poco, how is hierarchy in marriage a law of nature?"

I did not say that hierarchy in marriage is a law of nature. I said "hierarchy is a law of nature", and that it is. If you do not want to follow the biblical model for marriage, don't.

"Why is marriage better if one spouse is above the other?"

I am not "above" my wife. I am not "better" than my wife. I do not "rule" my wife, and we discuss everything of importance and always arrive at mutually agreed to decisions. However, "the buck stops here" is the responsibility that I carry.

"It takes work, but it's worth it, and it makes a marriage stronger in the end. from a 30-year-old churchgoing..."

From a biblical perspective, what makes the strongest marriage is the biblical model, regardless of what your particular church teaches or what you (or I) adhere to. Now, that's the biblical perspective. Compared to the source text, yours is obviously different.

Best Wishes,

Poco