There’s been an interesting discussion going on over on my Facebook page. My friend Kyle recently attended the Acts 29 Boot Camp in Louisville, KY and was kind enough to write out some of his impressions for us here.
It is interesting, that, in spite of the heavy emphasis on Gospel and doctrine in Acts 29, one of the first things many people notice is that there is somewhat of an “image” often associated with Acts 29. This doesn’t just apply to Acts 29, but that is what prompted the discussion. For example, one of the comments on my Facebook page was that someone said that “the store Buckle could be an official sponsor” of Boot Camp. I’ll be honest, I’ve never been inside the Buckle, but I know what the comment implies: there is a certain fashion at many Acts 29 events, funky pattern button-up shirts, tattered jeans, big watch, chunky glasses and iPhone with a messenger bag. OK, maybe I just described myself but I think you know what I mean. In fact, that might be an image of the broader “emerging” concept more than just Acts 29 or maybe we’ll call it the “missional uniform”?
This prompted the question: what is the relationship between doctrine and fashion? How/why is it that groups that often think alike also dress alike? This is true for any number of groups. The boomers had a certain “style,” as do many Southern Baptists. Sometimes, this is well-thought out and is in fact a missional decision but more often than not, I wonder if it isn’t some sociological principle at work? I don’t know, I’m just blogging out loud here, looking for your feedback.
Is it that Acts 29 attracts a certain type of individual (as do all groups), or that Acts 29 has created a certain kind of culture? Can those two questions even be separated? Most people (of course there are always exceptions) involved with, say, 9 Marks Ministries, are going to dress differently (and think differently on many issues) than many of the people involved in Acts 29. What is it that draws different people to these different groups?
Is it enough just to say that like attracts like? Is this wrong? How much should we then strive for diversity (I think we should)? What does the Gospel have to say about this?
you know, a29 is a lot like the Vineyard movement in this case. what you have is an urban influenced church-planting movement based on the fact that it is a child of Seattle. remember, a29 is a Mars Hill project. Mars Hill has grown primarily through conversions of young, hip, cool Seattlites. That one fact alone, where a movement originates from and how the culture influences its source, will have an inordinate influence on what a movement looks like from a social perspective, theological perspective, even a fashion perspective.
the same is true of the Vineyard. you could say that the ‘uniform’ of the Vineyard used to be a flowered-print Hawaiian style, short-sleeved, button-up shirt, a pair of khaki shorts and Birkenstocks. but what has happened over the last thirty years in the Vineyard is as it has moved east, and then world-wide, it has lost its concrete association to the fashion of southern Cali. us northern Vineyards run our churches differently, do hospitality differently, do theology differently and, yes, dress differently.
a29 is still a young movement. i’m sure it will last a long time and as it matures, markings like fashion will less and less be identifying factors.
This is indeed a fascinating subject. Not one for the history books or seminary courses (although I am sure it would be in the hallways and coffee shops nearby). As discussed on FB, there is a sub-sub-culture in the emerging, emergent and reformed church leaders. I liken it any other pop culture attire. Which is odd, given “churchy stuff” isn’t prone to be “pop”, but usually 5 years behind what’s current. And perhaps this then is another barometer of how church (or more aptly church leaders) may be more on top of the currents of the public than in years past.
So is Acts 29 to embellished button-ups as hip-hop is to baggy pants as indie rockers are to girl pants. Maybe a little bit. I know that given the situation, I can pick one out in a crowd. Alas, even Brent, though he was hipster doofus long before it was cool.
But that is good. This may be the Vestments of the new church, where it can be identified by those that know and as a symbol of “knowledge” for those seeking someone with whom to identify.
I’m definitely one of the biggest nerds in Acts29. I wear sweatshirts, plain color polo shirts, and mesh shorts as often as possible. If I could preach in mesh shorts and flip flops I would.
A similarly funny thing about A29 to me is that everybody is so “city-focused,” but hardly any of us are actually in big city centers. Instead it’s lots of suburban guys (like me). But cities, like designer shirts, are cool (at least to suburban white guys).
I don’t know anything about Act 29, but as a wanna-be hipster, I can say this: everybody likes to wear cool clothes. It feels good to feel like you’re dressed cool, whatever cool looks like for your particular subculture.
This may be a gift of goodness from God.
On the other hand, when being/acting/dressing/etc cool becomes more important than doing justice, loving mercy, and walking gently with God, I think it’s a problem, whether it’s an economic/justice problem (spending money on clothes that could be spent elsewhere) or a mercy problem (making sure you’re “in” whether or not somebody else is).
Like with a lot of God’s goodness, this is a balance whew of us strike well.